One problem is that if you're a kind of conservative anarchist like me you don't know if you're loony left or loony right. My approach was to vote for the most credible individual in my constituency, guided by what I am voting against (UKIP nationalism and any hint of traditional far right fascism). Actually talking to the prospective Conservative candidate I was comforted that he was more centre ground and not at the fascist wing of the Conservative party which leads me to conclude there may be other non fascists in the Tory party. However in the current personal Zeitgeist of voting against rather than for, I will also be spending the next five years opposing everything Michael Goves party does, because my perception of the underlying philosophy which shapes Conservatism is that if they are not the nasty party they are certainly the selfish one. My opposition does not mean that therefore I must be a supporter of Labour or the loony left. I get the distaste mentioned by many regarding the extreme left being finger jabbing and judgemental, who strive for non existent higher moral ground. However at its best the underlying philosophy of the left seems to me to be less selfish and less threatening than the right. I am aware of the terrifying manifestations of the so called left from the history of so called Communist countries such as Russia, but right now the enemy at the gate is more the Mongol hoards of Genghis Khan than the troops of Chairman Mao's long march.
Not sure if this has already been posted, but it sums it up nicely for me. Some of the posts on my Facebook aimed at anyone who never voted Labour have been incredible
Who knows - even Millwall supporters got relegated with more class and good grace than the loony left have managed. Aah, perhaps the clue is in their name then?
I'd say that was a bit silly. I think there are a lot of people on both sides that are grasping on to being enraged by each other because they're hooked on it.
It's been the most depressing election since I reached voting age, not necessarily because of the result (though as a member of the 'loony left' I can't say as I'm overly enthralled at the prospect it has delivered) but because the childish and partisan media have managed to stir up segments of the public across the political spectrum into a group of ill-advisedly self-assured, boorish, anger junkies.
I'd say that was a bit silly. I think there are a lot of people on both sides that are grasping on to being enraged by each other because they're hooked on it.
It's been the most depressing election since I reached voting age, not necessarily because of the result (though as a member of the 'loony left' I can't say as I'm overly enthralled at the prospect it has delivered) but because the childish and partisan media have managed to stir up segments of the public across the political spectrum into a group of ill-advisedly self-assured, boorish, anger junkies.
See, now this is a Tory, Eton and Trinity, but nowhere near as objectionable as Michael Gove, even though I would disagree with 95% of the things he would do if he had the power. I post it because people have been posting regarding their 'impressions' of people such as Burnham or Chuka. Umunna is unlikely to be as cool as he appears just as Balls is unlikely to be as useless as he appears. It would be good if the next Labour leader is not another white middle class middle aged man, but there are now obvious stand out candidates yet.
One problem is that if you're a kind of conservative anarchist like me you don't know if you're loony left or loony right. My approach was to vote for the most credible individual in my constituency, guided by what I am voting against (UKIP nationalism and any hint of traditional far right fascism). Actually talking to the prospective Conservative candidate I was comforted that he was more centre ground and not at the fascist wing of the Conservative party which leads me to conclude there may be other non fascists in the Tory party. However in the current personal Zeitgeist of voting against rather than for, I will also be spending the next five years opposing everything Michael Goves party does, because my perception of the underlying philosophy which shapes Conservatism is that if they are not the nasty party they are certainly the selfish one. My opposition does not mean that therefore I must be a supporter of Labour or the loony left. I get the distaste mentioned by many regarding the extreme left being finger jabbing and judgemental, who strive for non existent higher moral ground. However at its best the underlying philosophy of the left seems to me to be less selfish and less threatening than the right. I am aware of the terrifying manifestations of the so called left from the history of so called Communist countries such as Russia, but right now the enemy at the gate is more the Mongol hoards of Genghis Khan than the troops of Chairman Mao's long march.
Definitely loony left. You're saying all the Tories, are fascists, apart from the one you met.
I wouldn't claim, that all Labour politicians, are communists. You have just proved why the electorate rejected Labour and will continue to do so.
UKIP imploding. Patrick O'Flynn has called Farage, a snarling, thin skinned, aggressive man & a personality cult. Looks like they are trying to dump Farage.
Stuart Wheeler, one of UKIP's biggest donor also wants Farage to go.
You didn't say all but the fact you think there is a fascist wing of the Tory Party, or that any Tory MP is a fascist, does display either a breathtaking departure from reality or just no understanding of what a fascist actually is.
Different turnout normally between local and general elections too
Probably not when they are done on the same day in the same poling station
I know your a maverick PL54,
But that's a very good question; that needs a very good answer.
Different boundaries. Also, people vote differently nationally to local. In particular, there was a very strong anti Farage campaign in Thanet and people would have voted for the candidate that had best chance of beating him, then revert back to voting for another party at local level. This isn't uncommon.
You didn't say all but the fact you think there is a fascist wing of the Tory Party, or that any Tory MP is a fascist, does display either a breathtaking departure from reality or just no understanding of what a fascist actually is.
I have to disagree.
If you are only associating what I say with the Holocaust then you are missing the point.
Fascism initially replaced socialism's focus on class conflict with a focus on conflict between nations and races. Fascism advocated a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving self reliance to secure national self-sufficiency, and it promoted independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. Interestingly the rise of fascist political thinking grew from the great depression, but there are certainly Tories who would argue for protectionism (get out of Europe), conflict between nations (Cameron and Libya was supported, and also intervention elsewhere overseas), national purity (British values), certainly a mixed economy. There are thinkers at the far right of the Conservative party who would agree with some of the fundamental principals that helped early Fascism grow. If you want to describe my argument as a 'breathtaking departure from reality', and 'no understanding of what a fascist actually is' that is your prerogative, but I think you are wrong, and I disagree with you.
You didn't say all but the fact you think there is a fascist wing of the Tory Party, or that any Tory MP is a fascist, does display either a breathtaking departure from reality or just no understanding of what a fascist actually is.
I have to disagree.
If you are only associating what I say with the Holocaust then you are missing the point.
Fascism initially replaced socialism's focus on class conflict with a focus on conflict between nations and races. Fascism advocated a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving self reliance to secure national self-sufficiency, and it promoted independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. Interestingly the rise of fascist political thinking grew from the great depression, but there are certainly Tories who would argue for protectionism (get out of Europe), conflict between nations (Cameron and Libya was supported, and also intervention elsewhere overseas), national purity (British values), certainly a mixed economy. There are thinkers at the far right of the Conservative party who would agree with some of the fundamental principals that helped early Fascism grow. If you want to describe my argument as a 'breathtaking departure from reality', and 'no understanding of what a fascist actually is' that is your prerogative, but I think you are wrong, and I disagree with you.
So you cherry pick parts of fascism that align with some things that some Tory MPs would agree with.
You didn't say all but the fact you think there is a fascist wing of the Tory Party, or that any Tory MP is a fascist, does display either a breathtaking departure from reality or just no understanding of what a fascist actually is.
I have to disagree.
If you are only associating what I say with the Holocaust then you are missing the point.
Fascism initially replaced socialism's focus on class conflict with a focus on conflict between nations and races. Fascism advocated a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving self reliance to secure national self-sufficiency, and it promoted independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. Interestingly the rise of fascist political thinking grew from the great depression, but there are certainly Tories who would argue for protectionism (get out of Europe), conflict between nations (Cameron and Libya was supported, and also intervention elsewhere overseas), national purity (British values), certainly a mixed economy. There are thinkers at the far right of the Conservative party who would agree with some of the fundamental principals that helped early Fascism grow. If you want to describe my argument as a 'breathtaking departure from reality', and 'no understanding of what a fascist actually is' that is your prerogative, but I think you are wrong, and I disagree with you.
So you cherry pick parts of fascism that align with some things that some Tory MPs would agree with.
You could do the same with most Labour MPs.
That doesn't make any of them fascists.
Which is why I didn't use the term 'all' which was attributed to me.
Different turnout normally between local and general elections too
Probably not when they are done on the same day in the same poling station
I know your a maverick PL54,
But that's a very good question; that needs a very good answer.
Different boundaries. Also, people vote differently nationally to local. In particular, there was a very strong anti Farage campaign in Thanet and people would have voted for the candidate that had best chance of beating him, then revert back to voting for another party at local level. This isn't uncommon.
Let me try to follow what you have just said Henry ?
Any one who wasn't UKIP in the general election, voted for the Tory to make sure Farage Lost. I understand that tactical voting.
"then revert back to voting for another party at local level"
As UKIP won the local election in Thanet, you need to explain why would they do that if they were so anti Farage in the general Election ?
So i assume you mean anti Farage but not anti UKIP.
Actually talking to the prospective Conservative candidate I was comforted that he was more centre ground and not at the fascist wing of the Conservative party which leads me to conclude there may be other non fascists in the Tory party.
This is what you said. So you regarded the ONE Tory candidate you spoke to, as not fascist and leads you to conclude there MAY BE OTHER NON FASCISTS IN THE TORY PARTY.
Apologies, if I misinterpret the above . But to me that reads as you regarded all Tories as fascists until you spoke to one and decided he wasn't.
This led you to conclude, that although you consider all Tories fascicsts, there may be others in the Tories that aren't.
Tell you what, go and talk to some more, I think you may surprise yourself.
Actually talking to the prospective Conservative candidate I was comforted that he was more centre ground and not at the fascist wing of the Conservative party which leads me to conclude there may be other non fascists in the Tory party.
This is what you said. So you regarded the ONE Tory candidate you spoke to as not fascist and leads you to conclude there MAY BE OTHER NON FASCISTS IN THE TORY PARTY.
Apologies if I misinterpret the above . But to me that reads as you regarded all Tories as fascists until you spoke to one and decided he wasn't.
This leads you to conclude that although you consider all Tories fascicsts, there may be others in the Tories that aren't.
Tell you what, go and talk to some more, I think you may surprise yourself.
Actually talking to the prospective Conservative candidate I was comforted that he was more centre ground and not at the fascist wing of the Conservative party which leads me to conclude there may be other non fascists in the Tory party.
This is what you said. So you regarded the ONE Tory candidate you spoke to, as not fascist and leads you to conclude there MAY BE OTHER NON FASCISTS IN THE TORY PARTY.
Apologies, if I misinterpret the above . But to me that reads as you regarded all Tories as fascists until you spoke to one and decided he wasn't.
This led you to conclude, that although you consider all Tories fascicsts, there may be others in the Tories that aren't.
Tell you what, go and talk to some more, I think you may surprise yourself.
Perhaps you are more SWP than Labour ?
'Apologies, if I misinterpret the above . But to me that reads as you regarded all Tories as fascists until you spoke to one and decided he wasn't.'
Change 'regarded all' to 'suspected some' and you're closer to the mark.
Actually talking to the prospective Conservative candidate I was comforted that he was more centre ground and not at the fascist wing of the Conservative party which leads me to conclude there may be other non fascists in the Tory party.
This is what you said. So you regarded the ONE Tory candidate you spoke to, as not fascist and leads you to conclude there MAY BE OTHER NON FASCISTS IN THE TORY PARTY.
Apologies, if I misinterpret the above . But to me that reads as you regarded all Tories as fascists until you spoke to one and decided he wasn't.
This led you to conclude, that although you consider all Tories fascicsts, there may be others in the Tories that aren't.
Tell you what, go and talk to some more, I think you may surprise yourself.
Perhaps you are more SWP than Labour ?
'Apologies, if I misinterpret the above . But to me that reads as you regarded all Tories as fascists until you spoke to one and decided he wasn't.'
Change 'regarded all' to 'suspected some' and you're closer to the mark.
Well that's entirely different. I suspect there might be some fascist Tory, fascist UKIPers and communist Labour & Lib Dems. So what ? I should imagine many people suspect that to be the case.
There's a very simple solution to your problem here, Seth. Become right-wing. Not just slightly right-wing but the works. You need to believe in zero business regulation (hands-off financial approach) and capital punishment (hands-on social approach). You need to believe in British people's rights but the folly of human rights. Above all, you need to believe in liberty AND in surveillance, because a right-winger has nothing to hide! You see, those on the left are deluded. Not necessarily for their individual beliefs, although most of those are probably mad and involve spending money we haven't got on keeping the worthless poor on their Xboxes, but because being left-wing automatically confers delusion upon a person, much as heading right entails the coming-to-your-senses moment of any young progressive's life. You need to cast aside your Marx, your petrol bombs and your gay rights pro-religious-expression lunacy and say "I'm all right, Jack" - for you are British! And what is more right wing than a British person standing tall and asserting their right to all the land that they survey? I tell you what, Seth. - head to the nearest window, look out and say "I'm all right, Jack - for all that I can see is my own land!" Do this thrice daily and you'll be right wing in no time, and we won't have to put up with your bullying any longer.
There's a very simple solution to your problem here, Seth. Become right-wing. Not just slightly right-wing but the works. You need to believe in zero business regulation (hands-off financial approach) and capital punishment (hands-on social approach). You need to believe in British people's rights but the folly of human rights. Above all, you need to believe in liberty AND in surveillance, because a right-winger has nothing to hide! You see, those on the left are deluded. Not necessarily for their individual beliefs, although most of those are probably mad and involve spending money we haven't got on keeping the worthless poor on their Xboxes, but because being left-wing automatically confers delusion upon a person, much as heading right entails the coming-to-your-senses moment of any young progressive's life. You need to cast aside your Marx, your petrol bombs and your gay rights pro-religious-expression lunacy and say "I'm all right, Jack" - for you are British! And what is more right wing than a British person standing tall and asserting their right to all the land that they survey? I tell you what, Seth. - head to the nearest window, look out and say "I'm all right, Jack - for all that I can see is my own land!" Do this thrice daily and you'll be right wing in no time, and we won't have to put up with your bullying any longer.
All very well, but my passport is for the Republic of Ireland, yet I was born in Erith.
Different turnout normally between local and general elections too
Probably not when they are done on the same day in the same poling station
I know your a maverick PL54,
But that's a very good question; that needs a very good answer.
Different boundaries. Also, people vote differently nationally to local. In particular, there was a very strong anti Farage campaign in Thanet and people would have voted for the candidate that had best chance of beating him, then revert back to voting for another party at local level. This isn't uncommon.
Let me try to follow what you have just said Henry ?
Any one who wasn't UKIP in the general election, voted for the Tory to make sure Farage Lost. I understand that tactical voting.
"then revert back to voting for another party at local level"
As UKIP won the local election in Thanet, you need to explain why would they do that if they were so anti Farage in the general Election ?
So i assume you mean anti Farage but not anti UKIP.
Perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough. Yes, I absolutely mean anti Farage at a national level, but the tactical voters would be less worried at a local level which they will see as less important.
A number of people voted against Farage in Thanet South through tactical voting because he is really disliked by a large number of people. I know there are those who really like him, but they are in the minority. The 'I didn't for UKIP' campaign (which is cross party) was very strong in Thanet and particularly targeted not letting Farage in.
I don't understand the conspiracy theorists, that something dodgy happened. It is simple maths. So, in general election, let's say party A get 10,000 and party B gets 12,000, but that 12,000 is made up of 8,000 real party B and 4,000 tactical voters, then party B wins. When they vote in local elections everyone reverts back to the party they really support because they are seen as less important. Then party A will win in the local election as they will now be the biggest party. You end up with exactly the same number of votes for party A in both votes but in one place they win, and another they lose.
It is a well known phenomenon that people do vote differently in local and national votes, trusting a group at local levels but not national. Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP and, in the past, BNP all do better at local elections than national. There are probably some who voted UKIP at local but not nationally.
Also the boundaries are different which will make a difference.
So it is entirely plausible that Farage lost seat but UKIP won the council.
Comments
However in the current personal Zeitgeist of voting against rather than for, I will also be spending the next five years opposing everything Michael Goves party does, because my perception of the underlying philosophy which shapes Conservatism is that if they are not the nasty party they are certainly the selfish one.
My opposition does not mean that therefore I must be a supporter of Labour or the loony left. I get the distaste mentioned by many regarding the extreme left being finger jabbing and judgemental, who strive for non existent higher moral ground. However at its best the underlying philosophy of the left seems to me to be less selfish and less threatening than the right. I am aware of the terrifying manifestations of the so called left from the history of so called Communist countries such as Russia, but right now the enemy at the gate is more the Mongol hoards of Genghis Khan than the troops of Chairman Mao's long march.
It's been the most depressing election since I reached voting age, not necessarily because of the result (though as a member of the 'loony left' I can't say as I'm overly enthralled at the prospect it has delivered) but because the childish and partisan media have managed to stir up segments of the public across the political spectrum into a group of ill-advisedly self-assured, boorish, anger junkies.
Safe for work, and gently amusing.
But that's a very good question; that needs a very good answer.
I wouldn't claim, that all Labour politicians, are communists. You have just proved why the electorate rejected Labour and will continue to do so.
Looks like they are trying to dump Farage.
Stuart Wheeler, one of UKIP's biggest donor also wants Farage to go.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ukip-campaign-chief-attacks-snarling-farage/ar-BBjKOR8
If you are only associating what I say with the Holocaust then you are missing the point.
Fascism initially replaced socialism's focus on class conflict with a focus on conflict between nations and races. Fascism advocated a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving self reliance to secure national self-sufficiency, and it promoted independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.
Interestingly the rise of fascist political thinking grew from the great depression, but there are certainly Tories who would argue for protectionism (get out of Europe), conflict between nations (Cameron and Libya was supported, and also intervention elsewhere overseas), national purity (British values), certainly a mixed economy.
There are thinkers at the far right of the Conservative party who would agree with some of the fundamental principals that helped early Fascism grow.
If you want to describe my argument as a 'breathtaking departure from reality', and 'no understanding of what a fascist actually is' that is your prerogative, but I think you are wrong, and I disagree with you.
Socialists focus on class conflict.
You could do the same with most Labour MPs.
That doesn't make any of them fascists.
Any one who wasn't UKIP in the general election, voted for the Tory to make sure Farage Lost. I understand that tactical voting.
"then revert back to voting for another party at local level"
As UKIP won the local election in Thanet, you need to explain why would they do that if they were so anti Farage in the general Election ?
So i assume you mean anti Farage but not anti UKIP.
Apologies, if I misinterpret the above . But to me that reads as you regarded all Tories as fascists until you spoke to one and decided he wasn't.
This led you to conclude, that although you consider all Tories fascicsts, there may be others in the Tories that aren't.
Tell you what, go and talk to some more, I think you may surprise yourself.
Perhaps you are more SWP than Labour ?
; )
Change 'regarded all' to 'suspected some' and you're closer to the mark.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/14/bbc-reporter-c-word-in-nigel-farage-ukip
Apologies for misunderstanding you.
signed
Confused of Lee.
A number of people voted against Farage in Thanet South through tactical voting because he is really disliked by a large number of people. I know there are those who really like him, but they are in the minority. The 'I didn't for UKIP' campaign (which is cross party) was very strong in Thanet and particularly targeted not letting Farage in.
I don't understand the conspiracy theorists, that something dodgy happened. It is simple maths. So, in general election, let's say party A get 10,000 and party B gets 12,000, but that 12,000 is made up of 8,000 real party B and 4,000 tactical voters, then party B wins. When they vote in local elections everyone reverts back to the party they really support because they are seen as less important. Then party A will win in the local election as they will now be the biggest party. You end up with exactly the same number of votes for party A in both votes but in one place they win, and another they lose.
It is a well known phenomenon that people do vote differently in local and national votes, trusting a group at local levels but not national. Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP and, in the past, BNP all do better at local elections than national. There are probably some who voted UKIP at local but not nationally.
Also the boundaries are different which will make a difference.
So it is entirely plausible that Farage lost seat but UKIP won the council.