\"We're not racist. But...\"

[BillyStubbsTears]

YouGov poll tonight, asking the question, \"If you could have any foreign leader as Prime Minister of the UK, which one would you choose?\"

People who professed themselves Labour voters, chose Obama as their ideal leader by a big margin.

Only half as many people who consider themselves Tory voters chose Obama. Many more of them chose Angela Merkel as their ideal leader. (Which probably says summat about Tory voters and matronly women like...)

But it got me thinking. I thought the Tories were supposed to be the party of the Special Relationship with America. In the past, the Tories have told us to look to America for our role models. So why don't the Tory voters like Obama? Surely it couldn't be because he's a ni.....











....ce coffee colour, could it?

[BobG]

It's funny too that the Party of the Union flag, of knee jerk, unthinking nationalism and anti everything European seem to choose a German!!! Germany: the arch Euro federalists. Germany: a driving force behind the Euro. Germany: the hate nation for very nearly a 100 years now.

Now does that show something about the Tory party and the Tory grassroots?!

Cheers

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

Simple enough Bob. Show a Tory a strong slap from a nannyesque woman and he (or she come to that) ejaculates on the spot.

[Boomstick]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

YouGov poll tonight, asking the question, \"If you could have any foreign leader as Prime Minister of the UK, which one would you choose?\"

People who professed themselves Labour voters, chose Obama as their ideal leader by a big margin.

Only half as many people who consider themselves Tory voters chose Obama. Many more of them chose Angela Merkel as their ideal leader. (Which probably says summat about Tory voters and matronly women like...)

But it got me thinking. I thought the Tories were supposed to be the party of the Special Relationship with America. In the past, the Tories have told us to look to America for our role models. So why don't the Tory voters like Obama? Surely it couldn't be because he's a ni.....











....ce coffee colour, could it?

So all Nu labour voters are sexist pigs? I think it might be something to do with the fact one is a socialist and one is a conservative.
Pathetic, simply PATHETIC, what you are insinuating.

[BobG]

I hardly think it's an insinuation Boomstick. The records are simply full of Tory grandees indulging in exactly what BST suggests. It's fact mate. Look up Lord Profumo and Christine Keeler for just one example.

Socialists have their own peccadilloes, but this ain't one of 'em. It's Tory ground.

BobG

[vaya]

....not to mention binbags, citrus fruits and poppers.

[Savvy]

vaya wrote:

....not to mention binbags, citrus fruits and poppers.

 

Ah! The old asphixie w**k!! Never seems to have caught on!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Boomstick wrote:

So all Nu labour voters are sexist pigs? I think it might be something to do with the fact one is a socialist and one is a conservative.
Pathetic, simply PATHETIC, what you are insinuating.

Let me get this right spadger. You reckon Obama is a SOCIALIST?

The point I was making (quite clearly I thought) was that Tory voters have ALWAYS suggested that we look to America for our inspiration. Even under moderately liberal Presidents like Clinton or Carter, the centre of American politics has always been firmly balanced way to the right of ours. America now has a president who is certainly more left wing that Bush (not too hard really). But by no stretch of the imagination could he be described as a Socialist. Many of his policies would sit well with more left-wing Tories and certainly with their Liberal bedmates.
 
And yet. The Tory voters don't like him.

It's clearly not a straight left-right politics thing. Because twice as many Tory voters liked the Aussie (Labour) PM, Julia Gillard as liked the Canadian (Conservative) PM, Stephen Harper.

But, for the first time I can ever remember, Tory voters by an overwhelming majority don't like the current American President. I can't begin to imagine why.

[The Red Baron]

Perhaps it was because of the sneering way that Obama referred to \"British Petroleum\" (which hasn't been the company's name for several years) during the Gulf oil spillage.

Also perhaps because quite a lot of people think we should move on from the \"Special Relationship,\" especially as all the benefits are on one side, and either align more closely with Europe or become a more independent country that looks after its own interests first and foremost. (The latter is my preferred option, before you ask.)

Incidentally, how did your friends from the Lib Dems vote, or couldn't they find anyone who'd own up to supporting them?

[BillyStubbsTears]

vaya wrote:

....not to mention binbags, citrus fruits and poppers.

Funny old bunch the Tories in the 90s weren't they?

John Major made such a big deal of Victorian Values. Morals. Doing the right thing. etc, etc, etc.

And all the while, he himself was slipping Edwina Currie a length over his desk.

Jeffrey Archer was visiting prostitutes, then lying under oath about it and getting sent down for perjury.

David Mellor was knobbing a young actress behind his wife's back.

Jerry Hayes who vociferously supported the Section 28 legislation was outed as gay by a young researcher who had been underage at the time that he was his gay lover.

And then, to cap it all, Stephen Milligan was killing himself while dressed up in a gimp suit, eating popper-filled satsumas, throttling himself with a length of electric flex and thrapping off into a pair of lasses knickers.


And Boomstick wonders why I question the inegrity of those in the Tory Party!

[Barmby Rover]

You forgot the brown envelopes stuffed with fivers for Neil Hamilton and Jonathan Aitken doing bribery and lying in court to try to win a libel suit, for which he went to jail. The Moral majority eh?

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Red Baron wrote:

Perhaps it was because of the sneering way that Obama referred to \"British Petroleum\" (which hasn't been the company's name for several years) during the Gulf oil spillage.

Also perhaps because quite a lot of people think we should move on from the \"Special Relationship,\" especially as all the benefits are on one side, and either align more closely with Europe or become a more independent country that looks after its own interests first and foremost. (The latter is my preferred option, before you ask.)

Incidentally, how did your friends from the Lib Dems vote, or couldn't they find anyone who'd own up to supporting them?

That endangered minority, the Lib Dem supporter WAS found in isolated pockets for the survey. Lib Dem supporters were slightly more in favour of Merkel than Obama.

Interestingly, in last year's survey, when there were far more people claiming to be Lib Dem supporters, a large majority preferred Obama. That kind of underlines what's happened to the Lib Dems over the last year. The more liberal, left-leaning ex-Lib Dems have left them in droves and returned to supporting Labour as they did 10-15 years ago. What's left in the Lib Dem party is a tiny rump of centre-right Liberals - pretty much what they had in the mid-70s before the SDP came along. Over a couple of decades, they painstakingly wooed people who were disillusioned with Labour. And in 6 months, they have lost all credibility with those people. Those centre-left voters have realised that if they indulge themselves with a protest vote for the Liberals, they wake up with a Tory Govt. That has been a rude wake up call and those people will never do it again. That's why Labour has gone up 12-15% in the polls and the Lib-Dems down 12-15% since the Election.

The Lib-Dems meanwhile have no chance whatsoever of implementing policies that will attract those voters back. They are being slapped down by the Tories at every turn. Every week sees yet another liberal Lib-Dem policy being sacrificed. This week's example was Control Orders which Clegg made such a big deal about abolishing but which have been retained under a different name.

[RedJ]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

vaya wrote:

....not to mention binbags, citrus fruits and poppers.

Funny old bunch the Tories in the 90s weren't they?

John Major made such a big deal of Victorian Values. Morals. Doing the right thing. etc, etc, etc.

And all the while, he himself was slipping Edwina Currie a length over his desk.

Jeffrey Archer was visiting prostitutes, then lying under oath about it and getting sent down for perjury.

David Mellor was knobbing a young actress behind his wife's back.

Jerry Hayes who vociferously supported the Section 28 legislation was outed as gay by a young researcher who had been underage at the time that he was his gay lover.

And then, to cap it all, Stephen Milligan was killing himself while dressed up in a gimp suit, eating popper-filled satsumas, throttling himself with a length of electric flex and thrapping off into a pair of lasses knickers.


And Boomstick wonders why I question the inegrity of those in the Tory Party!

Maybe he just wanted to feel dirty while he was doing it?

[The Red Baron]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

The Red Baron wrote:

Perhaps it was because of the sneering way that Obama referred to \"British Petroleum\" (which hasn't been the company's name for several years) during the Gulf oil spillage.

Also perhaps because quite a lot of people think we should move on from the \"Special Relationship,\" especially as all the benefits are on one side, and either align more closely with Europe or become a more independent country that looks after its own interests first and foremost. (The latter is my preferred option, before you ask.)

Incidentally, how did your friends from the Lib Dems vote, or couldn't they find anyone who'd own up to supporting them?

That endangered minority, the Lib Dem supporter WAS found in isolated pockets for the survey. Lib Dem supporters were slightly more in favour of Merkel than Obama.

Interestingly, in last year's survey, when there were far more people claiming to be Lib Dem supporters, a large majority preferred Obama. That kind of underlines what's happened to the Lib Dems over the last year. The more liberal, left-leaning ex-Lib Dems have left them in droves and returned to supporting Labour as they did 10-15 years ago. What's left in the Lib Dem party is a tiny rump of centre-right Liberals - pretty much what they had in the mid-70s before the SDP came along. Over a couple of decades, they painstakingly wooed people who were disillusioned with Labour. And in 6 months, they have lost all credibility with those people. Those centre-left voters have realised that if they indulge themselves with a protest vote for the Liberals, they wake up with a Tory Govt. That has been a rude wake up call and those people will never do it again. That's why Labour has gone up 12-15% in the polls and the Lib-Dems down 12-15% since the Election.

The Lib-Dems meanwhile have no chance whatsoever of implementing policies that will attract those voters back. They are being slapped down by the Tories at every turn. Every week sees yet another liberal Lib-Dem policy being sacrificed. This week's example was Control Orders which Clegg made such a big deal about abolishing but which have been retained under a different name.

Although I broadly agree with your analysis of the Lib Dems, I see that you managed to move the topic away from the original theme- which was that Tory voters were a bunch of closet racists because they didn't profess their love for Obama. There are far more subtle reasons for not rating the President of the US as some kind of god- perhaps also his ability to talk a good game. We've had a fair few of those of our own, not least the present incumbent of No.10 Downing Street.

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Red Baron wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

The Red Baron wrote:

Perhaps it was because of the sneering way that Obama referred to \"British Petroleum\" (which hasn't been the company's name for several years) during the Gulf oil spillage.

Also perhaps because quite a lot of people think we should move on from the \"Special Relationship,\" especially as all the benefits are on one side, and either align more closely with Europe or become a more independent country that looks after its own interests first and foremost. (The latter is my preferred option, before you ask.)

Incidentally, how did your friends from the Lib Dems vote, or couldn't they find anyone who'd own up to supporting them?

That endangered minority, the Lib Dem supporter WAS found in isolated pockets for the survey. Lib Dem supporters were slightly more in favour of Merkel than Obama.

Interestingly, in last year's survey, when there were far more people claiming to be Lib Dem supporters, a large majority preferred Obama. That kind of underlines what's happened to the Lib Dems over the last year. The more liberal, left-leaning ex-Lib Dems have left them in droves and returned to supporting Labour as they did 10-15 years ago. What's left in the Lib Dem party is a tiny rump of centre-right Liberals - pretty much what they had in the mid-70s before the SDP came along. Over a couple of decades, they painstakingly wooed people who were disillusioned with Labour. And in 6 months, they have lost all credibility with those people. Those centre-left voters have realised that if they indulge themselves with a protest vote for the Liberals, they wake up with a Tory Govt. That has been a rude wake up call and those people will never do it again. That's why Labour has gone up 12-15% in the polls and the Lib-Dems down 12-15% since the Election.

The Lib-Dems meanwhile have no chance whatsoever of implementing policies that will attract those voters back. They are being slapped down by the Tories at every turn. Every week sees yet another liberal Lib-Dem policy being sacrificed. This week's example was Control Orders which Clegg made such a big deal about abolishing but which have been retained under a different name.

Although I broadly agree with your analysis of the Lib Dems, I see that you managed to move the topic away from the original theme- which was that Tory voters were a bunch of closet racists because they didn't profess their love for Obama. There are far more subtle reasons for not rating the President of the US as some kind of god- perhaps also his ability to talk a good game. We've had a fair few of those of our own, not least the present incumbent of No.10 Downing Street.

\"Moving away\" suggests that I've deliberately changed the angle of the discussion. It was rather a natural and rambling response to your own post. I still think the survey results in the original post raises some very thought provoking issues.

As for the Tory party being a bunch of closet racists, well a few years back, Andrew Lansley, the current (Tory) Health Secretary openly berated his party in the media for being full of racists. His exact words were \"There is endemic racism in the Tory party. It is in the system.\" Then remember those jokes by Ann Winterton about the Morecambe Bay cockle pickers? She went on serving as MP with her party's blessing after that.

True, the national face of the party has been squeaky clean for a good few years. But Google \"Tory Councillor suspended\" and see how many stories you'll find of what the party rank and file are like. There's barely a week goes by without some backwoodsman popping up having a go at niggers, Pakis or queers.

For what it's worth, my take is that the Tory party has served a very worthwhile purpose in this country. It is somewhat to the right of most European Centre-Right leading parties, and as such has provided a natural home for the hang-em, flog-em, deport-em, don't-let-the-queers-on-the-streets types. In many other European countries (France, Italy, most of Eastern Europe), those types join very strong far-right parties which frequently gain power in coalitions. In the UK, those types are more neutralised by being under a big Tory umbrella.

[The Red Baron]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

The Red Baron wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

The Red Baron wrote:

For what it's worth, my take is that the Tory party has served a very worthwhile purpose in this country. It is somewhat to the right of most European Centre-Right leading parties, and as such has provided a natural home for the hang-em, flog-em, deport-em, don't-let-the-queers-on-the-streets types. In many other European countries (France, Italy, most of Eastern Europe), those types join very strong far-right parties which frequently gain power in coalitions. In the UK, those types are more neutralised by being under a big Tory umbrella.

That's a function of the electoral system rather than the Tory party. In a first-past-the-post system you will get politics dominated by two coalitions- one centre-right, one centre-left. Even where one of these coalitions loses influence (eg the Tories in Scotland, Labour in south west England) their opponents will coalesce around another party.

Similar things have been said about Labour and the reasons why we've never had a strong Communist party in the UK. In countries with PR (France, to take one example) the Communists have remained separate from the Socialists, although they have been prepared to work with them in coalitions.  

That's why AV is a sham. All it will do is replace two party politics with three party politics with the Lib Dems (or so they hope!) holding a perpetual balance of power. That's why I'll have no hesitation in voting against AV in May- if the legislation ever gets through the Lords.

And yes- I realise I'm drifting even further from the original point here!

[BillyStubbsTears]

The Red Baron wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

The Red Baron wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

The Red Baron wrote:

For what it's worth, my take is that the Tory party has served a very worthwhile purpose in this country. It is somewhat to the right of most European Centre-Right leading parties, and as such has provided a natural home for the hang-em, flog-em, deport-em, don't-let-the-queers-on-the-streets types. In many other European countries (France, Italy, most of Eastern Europe), those types join very strong far-right parties which frequently gain power in coalitions. In the UK, those types are more neutralised by being under a big Tory umbrella.

That's a function of the electoral system rather than the Tory party. In a first-past-the-post system you will get politics dominated by two coalitions- one centre-right, one centre-left. Even where one of these coalitions loses influence (eg the Tories in Scotland, Labour in south west England) their opponents will coalesce around another party.

Similar things have been said about Labour and the reasons why we've never had a strong Communist party in the UK. In countries with PR (France, to take one example) the Communists have remained separate from the Socialists, although they have been prepared to work with them in coalitions.  

That's why AV is a sham. All it will do is replace two party politics with three party politics with the Lib Dems (or so they hope!) holding a perpetual balance of power. That's why I'll have no hesitation in voting against AV in May- if the legislation ever gets through the Lords.

And yes- I realise I'm drifting even further from the original point here!

I agree entirely with you on all these points.

A couple of years back, I was very much in favour of PR, hoping that British politics would fragment into 5 main parties (left Labour, centrist Labour, Lib-Dems, centrist Tory, Right Tory) allowing these parties to argue for what they actually believe in. A couple of months of seeing what coalition actually means soon disabused me of that one. What it actually appears to mean is \"vote for us in the middle and we'll decide what we believe in the day after the Election.\" It's the utter antithesis of what modern democracy is supposed to be about, where you vote for someone whose values are closest to yours and who you trust to generally vote along those lines. Of course there will be some occurences where this does not happen in special circumstances, and you can make up your mind at the next election if, on balance, you agree with your representative's voting record.

A vote for the Lib-Dems to participate in a coalition has proved instead to be a vote for a party that believes in nothing whatsoever will make up its mind on your behalf on every issue. That is farcical. It's basically asking voters to abdicate their own responsibility for thinking through what they personally believe in, and instead to leave it to the grown-ups who will do it all for them.

VAT, Tuition Fees, Control Orders, Public Sector cuts. All the very most pressing and important issues of the day. On every one of them, the Lib Dems have flipped round 180 degrees fromn what they were saying this time last year. So what is the point in voting for them ever again? If THAT is what coalition politics is about, I'll stick with First Past the Post ta very much and hope that we never again have the Lib Dems remotely close to power.

[Mike_F]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

A couple of months of seeing what coalition actually means soon disabused me of that one. What it actually appears to mean is \"vote for us in the middle and we'll decide what we believe in the day after the Election.\"

That rule seems to apply equally no matter who gets in. When was the last time a party came into power and kept to its election manifesto? Remember this soundbite: \"Education, ecucation, education.\"? I was 16 at the time and looking ahead to university. Grants were abolished and tuition fees introduced. I was certinaly educated. I learned what a lying bunch of crooks our politicians are. That applies equally to all parties so it doesn't make a whole lot of difference who you vote for.

I've lost all faith in the Lib Dems after spending the last decade or so saying \"Give them a chance and if they don't back up their promises then they'll have enough rope to hang themselves.\" That has come to pass demonstrably in recent months but at least we now know. It's not that they're any worse than the others, just that they're no better at keeping their promises. It's disappointing and I've become disillusioned with politics.

[RedJ]

To be fair, Blair really was a smarmy bas**rd who betrayed the left wing. In a way, Clegg's the same in that respect, although his betrayal is much greater than Call me Tony's.

[belton rover]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

YouGov poll tonight, asking the question, \"If you could have any foreign leader as Prime Minister of the UK, which one would you choose?\"

People who professed themselves Labour voters, chose Obama as their ideal leader by a big margin.

Only half as many people who consider themselves Tory voters chose Obama. Many more of them chose Angela Merkel as their ideal leader. (Which probably says summat about Tory voters and matronly women like...)

But it got me thinking. I thought the Tories were supposed to be the party of the Special Relationship with America. In the past, the Tories have told us to look to America for our role models. So why don't the Tory voters like Obama? Surely it couldn't be because he's a ni.....











....ce coffee colour, could it?

So, in a YouGov poll, Labour and the Tories have a slightly/considerably/marginally/ different opinion.

Amazing.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Talking of \"we're not racist, but\", did anyone see the English Defence League spokesman make a complete arse of himself on Newsnight the other day? It was like he had a string out of his back that someone pulled and made him say the same rubbish to just about every question that Paxman put to him. Even better was that these mantras were conradictory and nonsensical, but he seemed to think that people wouldn't dare question him about their logic and didn't know what to say when Paxman grilled him so ended up repeating them, making it worse. Stupid t**t. And he was supposed to be one of their intellectual members.  

PS Just found it on Youtube. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyO9s07Jgs

[Sprotyrover]

BST you have gone beyond the Pale with this one! how dare you contrast Tory Wan*ers with mein beloved Angelka :angry:

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yet more grumblings from the Neanderthal-wing of the Tory party.

Just seen on Newsnight, the hoo-hah about the fact that the Speaker's missus (who is quite MILF-ish by the way) has posed in a magazine draped only in a bedsheet.

Some un-named Tory MP harrumphed, \"It shows the weakness of the Speaker. He clearly can't control his wife.\"

I expect the said MP is currently in a horse-drawn carriage back to the shires where he will leather his children, piss on some peasants, then re-lock the chastity belt on his own wife's nethers before committing the Sin of Onan over the Nursemaid's arse.

[RobTheRover]

Glyn_Wigley wrote:

Talking of \"we're not racist, but\", did anyone see the English Defence League spokesman make a complete arse of himself on Newsnight the other day? It was like he had a string out of his back that someone pulled and made him say the same rubbish to just about every question that Paxman put to him. Even better was that these mantras were conradictory and nonsensical, but he seemed to think that people wouldn't dare question him about their logic and didn't know what to say when Paxman grilled him so ended up repeating them, making it worse. Stupid t**t. And he was supposed to be one of their intellectual members.  

PS Just found it on Youtube. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyO9s07Jgs

PMSL!

What a tool!  Cant even speak English, let alone defend it.

And why does he have a pseudonym?  Tax reasons?

Edit : Just found this video of Tommy and his pals working on Anglo-Dutch relations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TgDLVmpovY&feature=related

[Glyn_Wigley]

RobTheRover wrote:

And why does he have a pseudonym?  Tax reasons?

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/The-BNP-past-of-EDL-leader

[RobTheRover]

Hmmm, lovely bloke isnt he?  Didnt seem too cocksure when those Ajax fans fancied having a word.

[Glyn_Wigley]

That's because him and his like are all piss and wind without their own neanderthals by their side.

[Sprotyrover]

RobTheRover wrote:

Glyn_Wigley wrote:

Talking of \"we're not racist, but\", did anyone see the English Defence League spokesman make a complete arse of himself on Newsnight the other day? It was like he had a string out of his back that someone pulled and made him say the same rubbish to just about every question that Paxman put to him. Even better was that these mantras were conradictory and nonsensical, but he seemed to think that people wouldn't dare question him about their logic and didn't know what to say when Paxman grilled him so ended up repeating them, making it worse. Stupid t**t. And he was supposed to be one of their intellectual members.  

PS Just found it on Youtube. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyO9s07Jgs

PMSL!

What a tool!  Cant even speak English, let alone defend it.

And why does he have a pseudonym?  Tax reasons?

Edit : Just found this video of Tommy and his pals working on Anglo-Dutch relations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TgDLVmpovY&feature=related

After listening to that Cretin try to string a sentence together I wanted to 'Baseball Bat him!'

[The Red Baron]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Yet more grumblings from the Neanderthal-wing of the Tory party.

Just seen on Newsnight, the hoo-hah about the fact that the Speaker's missus (who is quite MILF-ish by the way) has posed in a magazine draped only in a bedsheet.

Some un-named Tory MP harrumphed, \"It shows the weakness of the Speaker. He clearly can't control his wife.\"

I expect the said MP is currently in a horse-drawn carriage back to the shires where he will leather his children, piss on some peasants, then re-lock the chastity belt on his own wife's nethers before committing the Sin of Onan over the Nursemaid's arse.

In a previous life I knew John Bercow. Not very well, but we were on nodding acquaintance.

In those days he worshipped the ground Margaret Thatcher walked on, as well as the ground his political hero Michael Portillo walked on.

When Portaloo fell out with the Tory party so did Bercow, but instead of doing something different (like making documentaries about railways) Bercow remained in the Tory party but married a Labour activist. Several times he thought about defecting to Labour, but he was mindful that he had a safe Tory seat.  He was only chosen as Speaker because the Labour MPs- then the majority- knew he and his wife would upset the majority of Tory MPs.

To my mind, Bercow is one of the worst kind of politicians- a man without principles or the courage of his convictions. I realise that what the unnamed MP said sounds bad, but when you understand the background, you can kind-of understand why he said what he said.

[RedJ]

Slightly off topic, did anyone hear the joke a Tory minister made at Bercow's expense re his height?