Support NeoGAF

[Chinner]

I think this is the link:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/t...oters-slam-labours-record-on-immigration.html
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2553

YouGov poll is out tonight apparantly.

 

[DECK'ARD]

:lol :lol :lol

 

[ghst]

this is pretty ironic considering this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/easter/7547029/Gordon-Brown-issues-Easter-greeting.html

need more atheists.

i'm not sure who i trust less, brown and cameron whose core morals are defined by antiquated superstitions and self-imposed schizophrenia, or clegg who despite being free of this silent yet gaping personality flaw, is spineless and compromising enough to allow his kids to be raised with these beliefs.

i'd have thought that after blair's divine perseverance on iraq, the secular british public would be dubious about voting in another god botherer in the 21st centry.

 

[JonathanEx]

Who the heck is Gene Hunt? How many people remember the 80s? The poster is designed to work with a particular demographic but it doesnt work with me.

Gene Hunt is from the TV shows Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes. Basically he's an awesome no-nonsense copper who is as unpolitically correct as you can get.

 

[killer_clank]

Brown will announce the election on Tuesday morning (6th April) at around 11am outside Downing Street. Polling day will be 6th May.

Ya heard it here first.

How do you know this?

 

[Chinner]

How do you know this?

Cause that's what everyone is saying lol. Ignore the part of the post where it makes it look likes its new/exclusive information.

 

[Stinkles]

Look at the flags of Scotland and England and tell me what you see.

Either a complete fallacy about a 1st century Middle Eastern Jew (IF he existed, St. Andrew was bound to a normal cross, actually a "T" shape, not an "X" - that's a myth invented long after his supposed death). Or this badass fucking African lion.

Either way, they're the opposite of indigenous.

 

[jas0nuk]

Cause that's what everyone is saying lol. Ignore the part of the post where it makes it look likes its new/exclusive information.

Yeah I'm just fooling, it's not new or exclusive. All of the press and the BBC have assumed that the election will be on May 6th based on various small pieces of evidence (the TV schedules for the debates have already been fixed). Plus a few cabinet ministers accidentally mentioned May 6th a while ago.

He has been forced into this date (constitutionally it could've been as late as 3rd June) but the Labour party can't afford to fight two separate elections, as the local elections are already set for 6th May. Helps to increase turnout as well.

The media have effectively cornered him into the date now anyway. If he delays it further, pushing the life of this current parliament to it's absolute legal limit, he'll be seen as "Bottler Brown" again just as he cancelled an early election in October 2007, and the opposition parties will accuse him of hanging onto power. But he's such a ditherer it's not unthinkable that he'll do it.

 

[Chinner]

lol
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/03/tory-tape-gays-bed-breakfast

The Tories were embroiled in a furious row over lesbian and gay rightson Saturday after the shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, was secretly taped suggesting that people who ran bed and breakfasts in their homes should "have the right" to turn away homosexual couples.

Just really confirms the obvious that despite what they say the Tories haven't actually changed their views toward homosexuals.

 

[iapetus]

Anyway, so Labour's new election campaign poster:

 

[DECK'ARD]

Conservative lead back to 10%, and Labour have dropped under 30% their lowest since January, on YouGov:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2554

Sky News are reporting YouGov’s daily poll for the Sunday Times. The topline figures with changes from Friday’s poll are CON 39%(nc), LAB 29%(-2), LDEM 20%(+1). It is YouGov’s highest lead for the Conservatives since January and the poll immediately following the Hoon-Hewitt move against Brown.
I always urge a lot of caution when polls appear to move direction, but the last two YouGov polls have shown increasing Conservative leads, as have ICM in the week and Angus Reid tonight. After the Conservatives being on back foot for a month or two, the last week has not gone too well for Labour, so it feasible that things could have shifted back towards the Tories.
Assuming the election is still called on Tuesday (as I’m sure it still will be) I am sure we will have a glut over polling over the next week to confirm what the position is – in past general elections everyone seems to want to commission a poll to start the campaign.

After the Tories shooting themselves in the foot for a while, Labour's efforts to do the same seem to have had an effect.

And this is before THAT poster ...

 

[Maleficence]

That poster is really fucking terrible. I mean seriously, that is the best they can come up with? How long have they been working on this shit? 5 minutes? Good god.

 

[Dabookerman]

Jesus Christ..

We're really gonna get a conservative government.

God damn man.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Jesus Christ..

We're really gonna get a conservative government.

God damn man.

Brown shouldn't have bottled it (again) and called the election for end of March. That was probably their best chance. It's been a catalogue of disaster since then, possibly getting even worse if the growth figures later this month show a slip back into recession.

If he delays now till June the media will crucify him, it's hilarious if he calls the election on Tuesday on the back of that poster. They were going to have the Milliband twats tour the country promoting that, I'd imagine they've scrapped that idea now.

Biggest own-goal of the campaign so far.

 

[Maleficence]

Can someone explain to me why the Lib Dems are never gonna get in? Please?

 

[Dabookerman]

Can someone explain to me why the Lib Dems are never gonna get in? Please?

Because people are STUPID >:X

 

[Veidt]

Conservatives might win... ugh

This thread is getting depressing.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Can someone explain to me why the Lib Dems are never gonna get in? Please?

The UK first-past-the-post voting system.

It's already heavily weighted in Labour's favour, it requires a big swing from Labour to Conservatives votes even to get the Tories in. It would require a HUGE swing to the Lib Dems to get them in.

The Lib Dems would have to get around 45% and Labour collapse to around 10% to get them enough wins (seats in parliament) to have a majority. Only the winner in each constituency counts for anything, the numbers cast for the losing parties count for nothing.

So it's not impossible, just very VERY unlikely with the way our non-proportional voting system works.

 

[travisbickle]

Can someone explain to me why the Lib Dems are never gonna get in? Please?

Because we all smile and nod our heads at their policies, but behind closed doors we wouldn't dream of voting for them.

 

[jas0nuk]

After the 05 election some research was published showing how unfair the electoral system is.
For each Labour MP elected, approximately 35,000 Labour votes were cast. For each Tory, it was approximately 45,000. For each Lib Dem it was something ridiculous like 120,000.

FPTP could be a good system, but the Boundary Commission, who decide the boundaries of each constituency, seem to be unable to make it fair. There should be no such thing as "safe seats" where the people inside a constituency are such that they always vote for a certain party no matter how bad that party is - but most seats are safe seats. There are only 200 or so "marginals".

re Chris Grayling - he has already made a number of gaffes placing his Home Secretary position in doubt. This will be the last straw and I highly doubt he will be in the cabinet if the Conservatives win.

 

[Wes]

lol
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/03/tory-tape-gays-bed-breakfast

Just really confirms the obvious that despite what they say the Tories haven't actually changed their views toward homosexuals.

This is huge.

 

[blazinglord]

This is huge.

Would have probably been more damaging if the Guardian had released the story during the actual election campaign. Instead it probably won't get that much coverage during the Easter break and on Tuesday it will be all about Gordon Brown calling an election.

Even though the Guardian has been very critical of the Tories in the past year, and some of its columnists are obviously partisan Labour, I'm not entirely convinced that the editorial board wants Labour to win again. Even the Ashcroft affair, which to be fair, most of the electorate didn't really care about, the Guardian could have done a lot more damage. It's almost as though they have accepted that the Conservatives are going to win and just want to keep them on their toes, close to the centre-ground than really coming out saying it's going to be a disaster and the sky will collapse if the Tories win - like they did with Boris during the mayoral elections.

 

[DECK'ARD]

This is huge.

When you read what was actually said rather than a potted summary it's less huge.

It's taking the whole 'is someone's private house still a business' line, which based on the reaction to the original story splits the public pretty evenly anyway.

That whole story was a bit of a grey area in how people reacted, because while technically wrong it also played on the whole 'imposing your beliefs on others' thing because of the religious aspect. So people could sympathise with either side. It wasn't a faceless corporation openly discriminating.

I expect the Tories saying 'that's just his personal view' would be enough to kill the whole issue, although his future prospects in the cabinet are probably not so great now

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

Because people are STUPID >:X

This is pretty much this, though it does give me a sense of moral superiority when I bring up the fact I voted for them so there's still a plus

 

[Dabookerman]

This is pretty much this, though it does give me a sense of moral superiority when I bring up the fact I voted for them so there's still a plus

Same here. I should also add that some people don't care. They have the mindset of "They're all cunt!"

Which may or may not be true, but at the end of the day, having the worst of the 3 in power is only gonna re-enforce that stupid belief.

 

[justjohn]

This is huge.

You can laugh all you want.

 

[Chinner]

The gay ban story seems to be pretty huge as expected, being talked about on the news and it's almost got a 1000 comments on the article.

also, for those who liked the go outside posh boything looks like the guardian is giving 100 away for free on a tshirt
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/competition/2010/apr/03/poshboy
can also buy it for 15 quid.

then you got the death of Eugene Terre'Blanche which i actually don't care about at all.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

The gay ban story seems to be pretty huge as expected, being talked about on the news and it's almost got a 1000 comments on the article.

also, for those who liked the go outside posh boything looks like the guardian is giving 100 away for free on a tshirt
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/competition/2010/apr/03/poshboy
can also buy it for 15 quid.

then you got the death of Eugene Terre'Blanche which i actually don't care about at all.

I laughed.

 

[jas0nuk]

It isn't huge. However, as expected, the Guardianista lefty thought police have gone insane about it.
He expressed a personal view which is slightly at odds with the current law, which he accepts, and his voting record shows that he voted in favour of gay rights. This is basically a non-story. He was never going to be Home Secretary anyway.

 

[Zenith]

the Guardianista lefty thought police have gone insane about it

wat.

 

[Empty]

It isn't huge. However, as expected, the Guardianista lefty thought police have gone insane about it.
He expressed a personal view which is slightly at odds with the current law, which he accepts, and his voting record shows that he voted in favour of gay rights. This is basically a non-story. He was never going to be Home Secretary anyway.

He has voted in favour of a few laws, but it's not really true overall.

Chris Grayling MP, Epsom & Ewell

voted moderately against the policy

Homosexuality - Equal rights

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1575&dmp=826

Thinking that commercial businesses regardless of size shouldn't be able to discriminate based on sex, race etc isn't legislating against thought, either, so quit the 'thought police' rubbish. They are allowed to think that gays shouldn't act on their feelings, not invite them into their personal houses, but to actively discriminate against them when they work as a business is not on and it helps breed intolerance. People wouldn't react like this is okay if Grayling said that B&B's should be able to reject mixed race couples if they wanted to.

 

[jas0nuk]

"Give rights to one group and you take them away from another"

How about a B&B run by a highly religious family who would feel uncomfortable having a homosexual couple stay in their home? Where do you draw the line on whose "equal rights" are more important?

When you mix politics, equality and religion, things get messy. I maintain that Grayling is a fool for allowing such a sensitive subject to be brought up a mere few days from an election.

 

[Raydeen]

He has voted in favour of a few laws, but it's not really true overall.



http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=1575&dmp=826

Thinking that commercial businesses regardless of size shouldn't be able to discriminate based on sex, race etc isn't legislating against thought, either, so quit the 'thought police' rubbish. They are allowed to think that gays shouldn't act on their feelings, not invite them into their personal houses, but to actively discriminate against them when they work as a business is not on and it helps breed intolerance. People wouldn't react like this is okay if Grayling said that B&B's should be able to reject mixed race couples if they wanted to.

Gay rights is such a non issue now, really it is. The only issue the gay community really faces is flying diametrically opposite to growing Islamification of the UK, which as you can imagine, presents big problems for The Guardianistas - two causes to fight, but they can only really choose one - so better to keep shtum and target boring old Tory fart instead. Grayling made a private comment in a private conversation and as B&Bs are normally run by famlies - they have the right to let in whoever they want, not to be dictated to by government - if it was a big hotel chain like Holiday Inn he was talking about, that would be a different matter.

Still I guess the Guardian is getting desperate and knows the battle is lost. Roll on the back to the 80's with Gene Cameron! :lol

 

[Zenith]

"Give rights to one group and you take them away from another"

How about a B&B run by a highly religious family who would feel uncomfortable having a homosexual couple stay in their home? Where do you draw the line on whose "equal rights" are more important?

When you mix politics, equality and religion, things get messy. I maintain that Grayling is a fool for allowing such a sensitive subject to be brought up a mere few days from an election.

are you really going to drag up the old argument of "what about the bigots' rights? you should be more understanding of them!"?

what about a B&B highly uncomfortable about having black people stay in their home, hmm?

 

[Dabookerman]

what about a B&B highly uncomfortable about having black people stay in their home, hmm?

Then they have the right!
Clearly those blacks are nothing but trouble.

 

[jas0nuk]

This is not about "bigots' rights"... society has rightly changed from the days of "no gays, blacks or Jews allowed", but religious people still feel uncomfortable about homosexuality. It is an incredibly touchy subject.

 

[Zenith]

This is not about "bigots' rights"... society has rightly changed from the days of "no gays, blacks or Jews allowed", but religious people still feel uncomfortable about homosexuality. It is an incredibly touchy subject.

irrelevant. It's illegal to discriminate. That is the law. I don't care if they're uncomfortable about having their prejudice rubbed in their faces. If it was a rational belief they cvould defend there wouldn't be any discomfort.

You say society has rightly changed to prevent it but in the same breath say it's ok because of people being uncomfortable around gays. Why exactly do you think it's ok when it's against gays but not other minorities? and before you say it's ok because it infringes on religious beliefs, people very frequently used to use religion to justify their superiority to other races.

 

[Walshicus]

but religious people still feel uncomfortable about homosexuality. It is an incredibly touchy subject.

Well, they can go fuck themselves?

 

[Chinner]

Although this particular news story is about gay rights, what this is really about is opening the floodgates; once you allow one kind of discrimination, every other kind of discrimination is acceptable. Calling this 'thought police' is just plain silly.

As for the whole 'I don't want the GOVERNMENT in my home' argument then this doesn't really fit that argument. When you turn your home into a B&B (or whatever), your home is now a business because you're using your home to provide a service. Logically, at least in my mind, it makes sense, and it's clearly defined in the law.

Religion really can't play the victim here, and they're not really in the position to do so. Besides most of this is just blatant discrimination that has been hard-wired into the baby boomer generation.

 

[jas0nuk]

irrelevant. It's illegal to discriminate. That is the law. I don't care if they're uncomfortable about having their prejudice rubbed in their faces.

This is New Labour summed up pretty nicely. Authoritarian laws to force everyone to accept their liberal Islington values whether they like it or not.

 

[Dabookerman]

but religious people still feel uncomfortable about homosexuality. It is an incredibly touchy subject.

Tough shit.

 

[Empty]

"Give rights to one group and you take them away from another"

How about a B&B run by a highly religious family who would feel uncomfortable having a homosexual couple stay in their home? Where do you draw the line on whose "equal rights" are more important?

When you mix politics, equality and religion, things get messy. I maintain that Grayling is a fool for allowing such a sensitive subject to be brought up a mere few days from an election.

You don't have the right to run a discriminatory business. We aren't taking away their right to avoid homosexuality if they choose to, like no-one took away the freedom for KKK members to hole up in their house to avoid seeing black people, but they have to adapt their lives around their intolerance, not the other people who are being discriminated against.

This is not about "bigots' rights"... society has rightly changed from the days of "no gays, blacks or Jews allowed", but religious people still feel uncomfortable about homosexuality. It is an incredibly touchy subject.

If they don't want homosexuality in their home, because of religious reasons or whatever, then they should try a different business to B&B.

Gay rights is such a non issue now, really it is. The only issue the gay community really faces is flying diametrically opposite to growing Islamification of the UK, which as you can imagine, presents big problems for The Guardianistas - two causes to fight, but they can only really choose one - so better to keep shtum and target boring old Tory fart instead. Grayling made a private comment in a private conversation and as B&Bs are normally run by famlies - they have the right to let in whoever they want, not to be dictated to by government - if it was a big hotel chain like Holiday Inn he was talking about, that would be a different matter.

Still I guess the Guardian is getting desperate and knows the battle is lost. Roll on the back to the 80's with Gene Cameron! :lol

Civil rights are always an issue in elections, specific gay rights aren't going to be an electoral issue, outside of a wider point questioning the extent to which the tories have changed as the clam to on social issues, sure, but the kind of belief expressed by Grayling has wider meanings outside of the group as Chinner says; it relates to all kinds of discrimination.

 

[Mr. Sam]

I don't think the guy's point was "gays should GTFO" - as the media seems to be reporting it - but that someone that runs a business out of their own home should have the right to refuse custom to anyone, homosexual or not.

 

[Garjon]

This is basically a non story

Now this I can agree with. I'd put money on this being swept under the rug before the week is out and never mentioned again by any party.
What I find much more concerning is how Cameron's seemed to be unsure what his party's policies were (regarding the Gay Times interview), which again, was forgotten within a few days. Such is the fickle world of politics, I suppose.
Though I have to say, religious reasons are not an excuse for this sort of discrimination.

 

[ghst]

This is not about "bigots' rights"... society has rightly changed from the days of "no gays, blacks or Jews allowed", but religious people still feel uncomfortable about homosexuality. It is an incredibly touchy subject.

"because a space wizard told me to do it" surprisingly doesn't circumvent our legal system when it comes to acts of prejudice in business.

they're no better than the muslim nutjobs standing around on boxes in hyde park shouting about invoking sharia law.

 

[Walshicus]

This is New Labour summed up pretty nicely. Authoritarian laws to force everyone to accept their liberal Islington values whether they like it or not.

And the Tories would be summed up as the party of enabling bigotry?

 

[micster]

Cause that's what everyone is saying lol. Ignore the part of the post where it makes it look likes its new/exclusive information.

I got my polling card yesterday and it said May 6th on it, so im guessing its confirmed. Confused me highly because I knew Brown would be announcing the date Tuesday.

 

[jas0nuk]

Just to highlight the lunacy of calling everyone a bigot:

http://www.gaylifeuk.com/hotels/london.shtml
"Exclusively gay"? I wonder if any heterosexuals have complained about this infringement on their rights.

EDIT: micster, that's a local election polling card. The general election hasn't been called yet but it is 99.9% likely to be 6th May as well.

 

[Walshicus]

Just to highlight the lunacy of calling everyone a bigot:

http://www.gaylifeuk.com/hotels/london.shtml
"Exclusively gay"? I wonder if any heterosexuals have complained about this infringement on their rights.

Didn't bother with the link, but if that's what I imagine you're claiming it is then yes - that's also bigotry.

 

[micster]

EDIT: micster, that's a local election polling card. The general election hasn't been called yet but it is 99.9% likely to be 6th May as well.

Ahh gotcha. Didnt think there was a local election coming up. Im exceedingly out of the loop these days