Who are you voting for on Thursday?

I think you're completely failing to understand that you're talking in percentages whilst everyone else is talking in actual voters. Voting generally was down ergo BNP got less votes now than 5 years ago.

i understand that they had fewer voters, but its better to talk in percentage as ALL parties votes were down because of the low turnout so it does not give a clear picture of what actually happened.
 
i understand that they had fewer voters, but its better to talk in percentage as ALL parties votes were down because of the low turnout so it does not give a clear picture of what actually happened.
The point being, it's hardly an outstanding victory when, in conditions which couldn't be more perfect for 'minority' parties to get votes, the BNP managed to poll less votes in their 'heartlands' than they did 4 years ago, and only got seats by virtue of a lower turnout.

It says something when a party hopes for a very low turn-out - you'd think if the BNP had any faith in their message they would be wanting a high turn-out, what with the 'silent' majority supporting them and all, despite the fact that 99.8% of the electorate didn't vote for them :p
 
I cant find the results for the Crewe and Nantwich area, according to the BBC stats on their web age we didnt vote, any idea why or what the results were?
 
The point being, it's hardly an outstanding victory when, in conditions which couldn't be more perfect for 'minority' parties to get votes, the BNP managed to poll less votes in their 'heartlands' than they did 4 years ago, and only got seats by virtue of a lower turnout.

It says something when a party hopes for a very low turn-out - you'd think if the BNP had any faith in their message they would be wanting a high turn-out, what with the 'silent' majority supporting them and all, despite the fact that 99.8% of the electorate didn't vote for them :p

Comparing vote numbers is silly... only vote % is comparable to previous elections. There can be various things which affect turnout which is why serious commentators only focus on the %.

In 1992 John Major squeaked a narrow victory, in 1997 Tony Blair won a landslide. Which one of those would you say was more successful? Yet Major got more votes in numerical terms. It is irrelevant, only the % matters.
 
The point being, it's hardly an outstanding victory when, in conditions which couldn't be more perfect for 'minority' parties to get votes, the BNP managed to poll less votes in their 'heartlands' than they did 4 years ago, and only got seats by virtue of a lower turnout.

It says something when a party hopes for a very low turn-out - you'd think if the BNP had any faith in their message they would be wanting a high turn-out, what with the 'silent' majority supporting them and all, despite the fact that 99.8% of the electorate didn't vote for them :p

all parties were down because of the low turnout right? so out of the low turnout BNP were up by 1.4%, now if there had been a higher turnout but the voting went the same way BNP would still be 1.4% up but would have had more votes than 2004. So it has nothing to do with them only doing well because of a low turnout as they would have done the same with a higher turnout
 
Absolutely outstanding victory for the BNP :) I hope we can build on this platform.

If you actually think about it, it's a dire victory for the BNP, with everything that's been going on in the economy and politics in the run up to the election, this was the time they would have their breakthrough, instead they got less actual votes than in the last election, only a marginal increase in their vote and won two seats pretty much by luck because of the very low turnout...

Hardly a finest hour if you actually look at it objectively. They will barely register at the general election.
 
If you actually think about it, it's a dire victory for the BNP, with everything that's been going on in the economy and politics in the run up to the election, this was the time they would have their breakthrough, instead they got less actual votes than in the last election, only a marginal increase in their vote and won two seats pretty much by luck because of the very low turnout...

Hardly a finest hour if you actually look at it objectively. They will barely register at the general election.

Nice spin. You try to put a brave face on it ;)
 
Comparing vote numbers is silly... only vote % is comparable to previous elections. There can be various things which affect turnout which is why serious commentators only focus on the %.

In 1992 John Major squeaked a narrow victory, in 1997 Tony Blair won a landslide. Which one of those would you say was more successful? Yet Major got more votes in numerical terms. It is irrelevant, only the % matters.

It's looking like most of the protest support stayed at home and it seems to have hit Labour the hardest especially in England. I also noticed that the LibDems have also done poorly since they've lost a lot of the usual protest voters, probably to the UKIP?

Here in Scotland it's looking like a 8% increase for the SNP though Labour still manage second.

If anything the low turnout this time around must show all major parties the utter contempt people have for them now with the expenses scandal. I expect Brown will try to play the "fix the system" card to try and stay in power and I guess it depends if Labour MPs want to chance an election if they get rid of him.
 
Nice spin. You try to put a brave face on it ;)

It's no more spin than you claiming this is a 'great victory', anyone would think the party was anything more than an irrelevance. They are, at best, as relevant as the green party in the Euro elections, and as relevant as the cornish seperatists at county council level...

Do you believe otherwise?
 
Nice spin. You try to put a brave face on it ;)

brown shirts at the ready then lads, we can have the Griffin youth party scouring the streets making notes of where filthy imigrants live

anybody non british can wear a badge so we can abuse them in the street.

make it a six pointed star, its been used before and fits in well with their policies
 
What boggles me most though is that the green party in France won as much as 16% of the votes ( compared to 28% votes for the biggest party). That pretty much confirmed my suspicion to stay away from the French. Also pretty funny that countries like Spain/Italy and eastern Europe never vote for them ultra left wing radical green party's :D. Only the (north) Western Countries seem to have lost their mind in terms of voting for them. Especially France but also Germany's and Belgiums votes really disappoints me.
Also disappointing is the votes for the communist party's in the eastern European countries.

But overall, I'm happy Christian Democrats won and overall the direction went a bit into the right, less environmental and taxation rubbish to deal with :).

Bit of :eek: springs to mind to the UK voters, so much BNP votes. Nationalism is a RUBBISH trait, don't understand why someone can vote for that. Rather concentrate on more important things, eg. the money in your wallet or safety, rather than making a problem out of the EU or immigration and moaning about identity, sovereignty and tradition? I'd have expected the liberal democrats to be the 2nd biggest after the torries, guess I was very wrong.

UKIP I don't know, They claim to be libertarian but also seem to be Nationalists :confused: and, do I not understand their policy's or do they want to rule with the hard hand ? Also grammar schools ( serious rofl at them :D) ? That aside I kind of agree with their views, the UK should be far more critic towards immigrants, shouldn't take any of the environmental **** like green tax and are pro nuclear :). They are very pro fishing though which makes me partly fear they might have an influence on fish stocks... I mean they say to bin the fishing quota's but wouldn't this effectively starve all the fishes in the oceans and kill fishing long term ?
 
Last edited:
To answer that ive done a fair bit of research on Europe, and in my opinion we would be far better off without it than in it... the shear amount of money we invest as opposed to what we receive is appaling, money I feel would be far better being invested in the NHS, Schools etc and the Military

Nonsense complete nonsense.

You fail to take into account and trade that is done between UK/Europe due to the UK being a member state.

Also don't come on about EFTA have a look at europe's trade with norway and compare to the UK once you have done all this comeback and moan. Not everything is as simply as the BNP/UKIP would have you believe.

Anyone with a modicum of intellect can destroy BNP's agruements but no one cares about them. Sad day for the UK electing thugs to the EP.
 
don't get ahead of yourself DD, they'll be marginalised for the next 5 ears in Europe. because of their new found fame they'll also have to come up with a more realistic, convincing political manifesto if they intend to get any further AND to top that all off the major parties in this country will have been shaken up enough to grow some balls and listen to the public as opposed to following their own agendas.

i can confidently predict that when next Euro elections role around they'll lose both those seats without having achieved anything in the meantime (save lining their pockets)
 
The BNP will side with other parties in Europe that hold similar views. Very much in the same way that the Tories have just got into bed with the Polish equivalent of the BNP and withdrawn from the EPP group.

The BNP will grow, as will the Greens and UKIP. Actually, overall the BNP vote share went up 1.3%, UKIP held steady but the Greens grew 2.4%. Wait until the next general election, the crap will really hit the fan then. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom