Executive Sadman Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'd like to see some real analysis of i) how many postal votes involved (known for voter fraud/community write ins, especially amongst ethnic communities) ii) voter religous/ethnic bent. Any media types reading this, get cracking - there could be a press award in it for you. I fear - and the above analysis would need to prove me wrong with hard stats - that this is the first example of the balkanisation of the UK. Ill educated populations told how to vote by their community 'leaders' amongst ethnic and religious lines. Corruption and downwards spiral for the average citizen here we come.... Yes, i heard the pro-galloway postal vote was far more decisive (in excess of 75%) as the male head a muslim household fills in all ballots sent to that address. The women never see their own ballots! Postal voting is a recipe for corruption. If you cant manage to get out the house to a polling station someway or another, even if it takes a bloody ambulance to get you, you shouldnt be voting. God damn labour for putting us in this position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 God damn labour for putting us in this position. ...if it is not democratic ...like Labours stance on the West Lothian question...then it should be reversed ....surprised how quiet Red Ed is on the Independence issue in Scotland ...he has everything to lose ...while the lively DC puts on a UK stance and yet has everything to gain from a Scottish breakaway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Englebert Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 And from the wail... "...has left Ed Miliband reeling.Bookies have now cut the odds on him not leading the party at the next General Election from 5/2 to 9/4 with William Hill saying the result was 'potentially a disaster for Labour.' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122523/George-Galloway-Secures-shock-victory-Bradford-West-election.html#ixzz1qbM8S5vm" If lab have got any sense they'll ditch him ASAP and make a pseudo new start with just about anybody else with a pulse. I dont think it matters who leads the Labour party. They will, in my eyes, still be the party of the Iraq War, High house prices, mass immigration and debt. What a legacy! Having the other Milliband in charge would make them even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare Bear Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Yes, i heard the pro-galloway postal vote was far more decisive (in excess of 75%) as the male head a muslim household fills in all ballots sent to that address. The women never see their own ballots! Postal voting is a recipe for corruption. If you cant manage to get out the house to a polling station someway or another, even if it takes a bloody ambulance to get you, you shouldnt be voting. God damn labour for putting us in this position. But labour facilitated the postal vote as they saw the muslims as natural labour voters. I think the expression is 'hoist with one's own petard'/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbonic Posted March 30, 2012 Author Share Posted March 30, 2012 There maybe a lot of Muslims in West Bradford, but there is a hell of a lot more white Christians and they obviously voted for Galloway. I'm not sure that's correct. This is from the 2001 census. After 10 more years of mass immigration I suspect the numbers for the 'white' category will be down and the indo-pakistani will be up: From the BBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Remind me - which party submitted a muslim candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie The Tramp Returns Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 You know William Joyce was carried on the shoulders of Hitler`s propaganda mob in celebration, but in the end we hung the b*****d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stay Beautiful Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 but in the end Not the end though is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Self Employed Youth Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Yes, i heard the pro-galloway postal vote was far more decisive (in excess of 75%) as the male head a muslim household fills in all ballots sent to that address. The women never see their own ballots! Postal voting is a recipe for corruption. If you cant manage to get out the house to a polling station someway or another, even if it takes a bloody ambulance to get you, you shouldnt be voting. God damn labour for putting us in this position. The postal vote is just handier, gives you time to research and make an informed decision at home, rather than going to the library. If working the polls at a different poll station to your own, it is also handy to have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie The Tramp Returns Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Not the end though is it? Unless he keeps his zip up the end will surely come with no (IIRC) 74 Virgins awaiting him . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie The Tramp Returns Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Gorgeous George Galloway Wins Bradford Seat George the p***k But Salma Yaqoob, the Respect Party leader, said it was "patronising" to suggest that Mr Galloway - a critic of the UK's mission in Afghanistan - had been dependent on support from Muslims for his victory. Really, the mind boggles I can`t believe the crap banged out by these propagandists. Was it the local WI who carried him aloft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Orange Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Bradford had, perhaps like Wales, quasi-Balkanised politics for many years when it was the British Pakistani elders who instructed their communities to vote Labour, with the youths breaking the pattern when Galloway appealed to them (and the British Pakistani youths also mentioned Bradford going downhill with few opportunities, and it's not their fault that their parents/grand parents got stranded in a grim industrial city that was run into the ground by a fossilised textile industry). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Bradford had, perhaps like Wales, quasi-Balkanised politics for many years when it was the British Pakistani elders who instructed their communities to vote Labour, with the youths breaking the pattern when Galloway appealed to them (and the British Pakistani youths also mentioned Bradford going downhill with few opportunities, and it's not their fault that their parents/grand parents got stranded in a grim industrial city that was run into the ground by a fossilised textile industry). Well British Pakistani youths do have a point. They are pretty much in the same economic boat as many of their poor white counterparts. Their parents and grand parents made a particularly poor choice in the migration stakes, although it is probably one now being echoed across Europe. In fact they have been born just in time to see most of the jobs and wealth that their parents were chasing shipped off to Asia. The reality is that the tide of history and the economy means that Britain should have been exporting people since World War 2 not importing them. It is not just the natives in the UK who have suffered from successive governments immigration policies. Just trying to solve all economic problems in the UK by importing cheaper labour has been the single most stupid government policy of my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Right the point I was going to make before I was distracted. This is too early to tell but maybe Labours problem is much bigger than you or they think. Consider the parties progress here - and I type all this being what they would consider a born Labour supported - North East, working class + coal miner family: Modern UK politics begins after the 2nd world war. Labour were elected as the party of the working man. They created the NHS, welfare state and all that. On a side note, the early Labour leaders would be considered very right-wing - no subs then no benefits. By the 70s the UK economic structure was falling apart. All politcal parties had failed to adjust to wider choice - Britsh Leyland vs. Datsun stuff. In the 80s Labour suffered big defeats. The Labour party then started disappearing up a very inward, over political theory, which is all a pile of BS, think bak to those pointless student politics of communism vs. trots and all that. Not really acceptable from 18yo but nuts from a 50 yo - think miltant which was just a 'make it up as we go along thing' Anyhow, Labour won in the mid 90s. Partly due to the Cons losing. 1997->2002 Labour really did nothing. 2002->2007 Gordon Brown actions have probably destroyed Labour as a centre Left party. Part of the outcome of the 2002 splurge was that Labour stopped being the working mans party and became the public sectors party. Not being party political here but can you say anyhting Labour did for someone working in the private sector? Labour are not the party of poor. Labour are now the party of the people who 'farm' the poor. And this is their problem. If they get in next time what do they do? There entire existence is tied to increasing money for their political base- the public sector. I think Ed Miliband and his chums would be well advised to read your comments which pretty well sum up my views on the Labour Party. I long ago came to the conclusion that it was as dedicated to keeping the working class poor as any Tory politician because that way it hoped to 'farm' their votes as you have so beautifully put it. When the white working class responded to Thatchers populist aspirational brand of conservatism back in the 1980s Labour simply decided to abandon them and concentrate its efforts on creating a new consituency of amenable and exploitable voters amongst immigrant groups. This was part of the the reason behind their virtual dismantling of immigration controls. If nothing else the votes cast for Galloway last night blow that strategy to pieces. BTW before Tories start celebrating they should note that this seat was on their marginal target list for winning an outright majority in Parliament and their vote declined as much as Labours.If this was repeated in other northern Parliamentary marginals then they wont be able to get away from Coalition government anytime soon. The reality is Cameron and Osborne have proved just as adept at screwing over Conservative core voters as Labour did to their own supporters under Blair or Brown. The Parliamentary system is essentially just a con trick perpetrated by a small political class and their financial backers on the rest of the population regardless of race, creed or colour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Englebert Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 The postal vote is just handier, gives you time to research and make an informed decision at home, rather than going to the library. If working the polls at a different poll station to your own, it is also handy to have... The postal vote is a disaster. It is only suitable for lazy bastardos who can't be bothered to get off their big behinds and visit the polling station (if only to spoil their voting papers.) Postal votes are a sham and are open to so much abuse, its insane. They are another reason why I cannot take Politics in this country seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbonic Posted April 1, 2012 Author Share Posted April 1, 2012 According to a national YouGov poll published in today's Sunday Times the state of play of the parties is: Labour = 42% (WTF!) Con = 33% LibDem = 8% (a proper minority party then) 'Other' = 17% So 'Other' is almost half the popularity of the tories right now, and over twice as popular of the Libdems. You can see why the big two campaigned against any type of PR in our system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Nice try, but it doesn't matter does it? Gorgeous George was campaigning on an anti war / anti western imperialist footing, Nu Liebour took the UK to war so that tactic was never going to wash. The Nu Liebour candidate was probably seen as a Muslim patsy for Nu Liebour by the er British Muslim population. I take the warning of this by election very seriously, but I'm not in a position of influence so no one will give a toss apart from my son when he's old enough to understand when I explain how the party of the working man destroyed the exact people they should have held dear. No idea on the exact politics, or the precise breakdown of the vote. What is clear is that GG is a rather effective electoral tactician, as has been proven several times. I also find it quite hard to pick holes in much that I know he stands for. Labour have accused him of cynically using the muslim vote - yet they fielded a muslim candidate for that election. I am also curious as to why they imagine a candidate would want to deliberately NOT campaign on a platform that coincides with the majority view in the district? Not being a fan of labour, I wouldn't be trying to justify anything they have said or done to my kids - if anything I shall vilify them in the most odiferous terms available. They have dismantled everything positive about this country and brought it to it's knees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 According to a national YouGov poll published in today's Sunday Times the state of play of the parties is: Labour = 42% (WTF!) Con = 33% LibDem = 8% (a proper minority party then) 'Other' = 17% So 'Other' is almost half the popularity of the tories right now, and over twice as popular of the Libdems. You can see why the big two campaigned against any type of PR in our system. Polls like this are simply worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted April 1, 2012 Share Posted April 1, 2012 Regarding Galloway, I attempted to listen to him debating Hitchens, and he lost credibility when he lied when asked about meeting Saddam Hussain as this video proof shows, so I can't take him seriously, but if you can, fair enough: haha, think I saw it before - back when it was fresh. Just tried watching it again, but can't make myself get through Hitchens banging on about what a top job we did by going into iraq to stop it whirling into a "vortex of bloodshed" or whatever the phrases were. Nauseating, from someone usually so in tune with my prejudices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie The Tramp Returns Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 After his sensational by-election victory of last week, he might have been expected to pause for breath.Instead, three-times-married ‘Gorgeous George’ Galloway flew to Amsterdam and took a fourth bride – a woman 30 years his junior. The ceremony, in a hotel, happened less than 48 hours after the MP took the Labour stronghold of Bradford West with an astonishing 10,000-plus majority for his Respect party. And it was a mere four months since his third wife had given birth to a son – their second. The latest bride of 57-year-old Mr Galloway is anthropologist Putri Gayatri Pertiwi. At 27 she is two years younger than his first child, Lucy, a mother of two. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2124227/George-Galloways-new-Dutch-bride-Putri-Gayatri-Pertiwi.html#ixzz1r15ZxRvC George has a very loose zip did not another Lady in the Commons cried I want your baby in a very strange place during a passionate liaison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 George has a very loose zip did not another Lady in the Commons cried I want your baby in a very strange place during a passionate liaison. Other politicians claim to support marriage. George supports it actively by setting an example, even without tax breaks for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24gray24 Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Why do the press, the American government, Labour all hate George Galloway? There's no doubt they're out to get him. Saw Paxman trying to stitch him up tonight. It's always the same. Even the appearance before the Senate, what was that about, if not an attempt to get him? He opposes the wars. Is that it? I'm puzzled. (They say he likes dictators, but there are umpteen pictures of Tony Blair shaking the hand of Gaddhafi/Saddam/you name it, and no one says a thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Because he's a liar perhaps? Haha... show me an mp that hasn't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie The Tramp Returns Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Only complete idiots voted for George, how worrying it is that Bradford has so many complete thick as planks idiots who cannot think logically, Gawd help the future of the UK if we all follow Bradford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stay Beautiful Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Only complete idiots voted for George So the clever people didn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.