BNP fate and the Conservative's next move..

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I found no-one able to explain this last night. The BNP claiming near 10% in some seats. The funny thing was is that they were (in most cases) getting this jump from the division of the Labour vote. Perhaps I am missing something but aren't Labour voters more likely to vote for someone else before they jump on with the extreme right wing parties?

Do the Tories move to the right to snap these votes up or why did they go so far right in the first place?

[A18]

What do the Conservatives support in Great Britain? I bet they don't even support a flat tax, so they obviously aren't "so far right."

[Banana Republic]

What do the Conservatives support in Great Britain? I bet they don't even support a flat tax, so they obviously aren't "so far right."

Last time I checked, neither does your almighty GOP.

[A18]

Actually, most of our party leaders support:
(A) a national sales tax, OR
(B) a Value-Added tax, OR
(C) a flat income tax

No that we're "so far right" either.

[Peter]

BNP isn't far right in the way that Mr. Tennessee 2024 is suggesting: They are rascist, isolationist social authoritarians to be sure, however their economic outlook is quite left wing and very populist indeed.

This is why they pull votes off Labour more easily than you might expect - their economic populism appeals to the more bigoted Labour voters out there.

Only a lurch into social conservatism would help the Tories win BNP votes, which in my opinion would kill off even more socially liberal voters than it would gain, and would possibly cause the modernising MPs such as Maude to jump ship.

[A18]

So the UK has no right-wing party then? Wow, glad I don't live there.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Nice job sticking to the topic guys...

TN are my initials by the by

[Peter]

So the UK has no right-wing party then? Wow, glad I don't live there.

UKIP is pretty economically conservative and Veritas openly suggested a flat tax, though you'd have a personality clash with Kilroy I'm sure.

[Banana Republic]

So the UK has no right-wing party then? Wow, glad I don't live there.

We don't have a bloated, corrupt, deficit-running, homophobic, hypocritical, televangelist-run political machine that rigs elections and lies to the public on a regular basis(getting away with it too), if that's what you mean by right-wing.

[A18]

Neat. Neither do we.

[Banana Republic]

Neat. Neither do we.

Since when did the Republicans close up shop?

[A18]

Around 1824, when they became the Democrats, but I wouldn't describe them the way you do.

[Banana Republic]

Around 1824, when they became the Democrats, but I wouldn't describe them the way you do.

I'm refering to the party that rails against gays on a regular basis, is a lapdog to the like of Pat Robertson, and when given a surplus has run up $7,782,816,546,352 in debt

[A18]

Hahahaha. I see someone doesn't know what the difference between a deficit and the national debt is.

[Banana Republic]

Hahahaha. I see someone doesn't know what the difference between a deficit and the national debt is.

A deficit is the amount of money the government has spent over what it has taken in. By borrowing(debt) it has agreed to pay that money, which is money spent.

BTW, lame comeback

[A18]

Which is not $7.8 trillion. That's the national debt, of which each year's deficit (we have not had a true surplus since the '60s) is a very small part.

[Banana Republic]

Which is not $7.8 trillion. That's the national debt, of which each year's deficit (we have not had a true surplus since the '60s) is a very small part.

That's not an argument to what I said. And the U.S. deficit is 500 billion, not exactly small. If you'll reread my post I said that the 7 trillion was debt, not deficit.

[A18]

Which you said Bush ran up, which is completely false. You seem to be living in a fantasy world where we were debt free before Bush, and suddenly we're here four years later with a $7.8 trillion debt.

As a percentage of GDP, the deficit is about 4 percent, which is completely sustainable.

[Banana Republic]

Which you said Bush ran up, which is completely false. You seem to be living in a fantasy world where we were debt free before Bush, and suddenly we're here four years later with a $7.8 trillion debt.

As a percentage of GDP, the deficit is about 4 percent, which is completely sustainable.

You have to borrow to pay off a deficit. Bush achieved the highest ratio of debt to GDP in 50 years. The debt was at only 5 trillion when Bush took office. That's 2.8 trillion dollars, more than any president since Truman!

Either way I'm done arguing, we can agree that both the deficit and national debt have increased dramatically and the rate-of-increase has gone up drastically under Bush

[A18]

I'm glad you were finally big enough to admit you were completely and in every way wrong about Bush running up a $7.8 trillion debt.

As for the facts, well, they're the cross that you're nailed to. That's why you just admitted to being wrong, and why the deficit remains at around 4 percent of GDP -- sustainable by any sane definition of the word sustainable.

[Banana Republic]

I'm glad you were finally big enough to admit you were completely and in every way wrong about Bush running up a $7.8 trillion debt.

Sorry to see my fears about literacy amongst GOP members confirmed.

[A18]

See, here in America, 7.8 is not equal to 2.8. Why don't you go eat a banana or something?

[Banana Republic]

See, here in America, 7.8 is not equal to 2.8. Why don't you go eat a banana or something?

Running up does not mean he ran every little bit of it up, now does it? No, didn't think so. He did run it up, more than any president since World War II.

You see, things like that don't happen here. I'm proud to live in a country where the socialists can be in power and our government is still fiscally responsible. Unlike in the U.S. where the right-wing party is as Keynsian as it gets. To quote an amateur: "Wow, glad I don't live there."

[A18]

No, you were quite explicit in saying the party "given a surplus has run up $7,782,816,546,352 in debt." There's no clearer way of saying we ran exactly $7,782,816,546,352 in debt, and no clearer way of comparing it to a surplus.

When socialists talk about fiscal responsibility, it means they'll be sure to take the money from you before spending it, and not a whole lot else.

[Banana Republic]

No, you were quite explicit in saying the party "given a surplus has run up $7,782,816,546,352 in debt." There's no clearer way of saying we ran exactly $7,782,816,546,352 in debt, and no clearer way of comparing it to a surplus..

When you get a surplus you're supposed to pay off debt, not run it up to record levels! When you run a budget deficit you have to borrow more, thereby increasing debt.