The BNP could get over 60 seats in Parliament

[newspresenter]

"NuLab is in a very weak state. At its peak in 1997 it polled 13.5 million votes. In 2005 it polled only 9.5 million. Those lost votes did not go to the Tories, whose vote fell by 800,000, or the Lib Dems, whose vote increased by only 200,000 over the same period. Those voters stayed at home.
If Labour does badly next week, it is likely that its new leadership will take it closer to the Lib Dems, perhaps even into coalition. Where will its lost voters go then? Mostly, I suspect, to the BNP. At the European election last year, the BNP scored six percent of the poll and NuLab only 15 per cent.
There is a very likely prospect of the BNP fishing for votes amongst the poorer white ex-Labour voters being hit by unemployment, expenditure cuts and higher taxes on petrol and VAT increases. They might score 10 per cent in a future election – and under the Clegg system finish up with over 60 MPs.
Mr Clegg might find his love affair with Google Page Ranking and debt denial would bring a very different Parliament."
Nick Clegg's electoral reform could give the BNP over 60 seats in the House of Commons – Telegraph Blogs

If you are thinking of voting for Lab-Con, because you think it wont make a difference elsewhere, then think again. A vote for one of the others will make much more of a difference than at any other time because there will be reform in the sense that Proportional Representation will mean every vote will be heard in Parliament after a re-election. The above quote is just an example of what could happen for all the smaller parties.

[Citizen Smith]

BNP score 10%? Not going to happen.

[Neo2012]

BNP score 10%? Not going to happen.

but I bet Griffind pocketed a nice cheque of NP.

Come on tell us how much you donated NP? And hown many MP's?

[ryoden]

I think I worked it out to being closer to 7 seats with P.R. considering they got 1.9% of the total vote.

[MarkMuses]

We've got fascism in power anyway so I don't know what the fuss is about. There is only one form of free speech allowed and it will be politically correct or else.

[ryoden]

We've got fascism in power anyway so I don't know what the fuss is about. There is only one form of free speech allowed and it will be politically correct or else.

Well now Labour is out of power maybe some of those attitudes will become redundant (hopefully), or do you think that a Cons / Cons/Lib government would be no change with regards to political correctness?

[MarkMuses]

Well now Labour is out of power maybe some of those attitudes will become redundant (hopefully), or do you think that a Cons / Cons/Lib government would be no change with regards to political correctness?

Cons will be no different. Michael Heseltine's speech on so called racism in the Tory party closed down any further debate and the Tories have been compliant ever since.

Liberal Democrats are neither liberal nor democratic. The last good one I know about Dr Evan Harris lost his seat.

UKIP are PC certified too.

So no I don't see any change. I don't see any debate likely. Only more mass immigration and more censorhsip to keep a lid on the resentment it causes.

[ryoden]

Cons will be no different. Michael Heseltine's speech on so called racism in the Tory party closed down any further debate and the Tories have been compliant ever since.

Liberal Democrats are neither liberal nor democratic. The last good one I know about Dr Evan Harris lost his seat.

UKIP are PC certified too.

So no I don't see any change. I don't see any debate likely. Only more mass immigration and more censorhsip to keep a lid on the resentment it causes.

You may be correct and the cynic in me agrees but I remain ever hopeful that the "change" Cameron bangs on about is not just another empty word.

[Neo2012]

we've got fascism in power anyway so i don't know what the fuss is about. There is only one form of free speech allowed and it will be politically correct or else.

you're pc..........

Rofl

[Neo2012]

Well now Labour is out of power maybe some of those attitudes will become redundant (hopefully), or do you think that a Cons / Cons/Lib government would be no change with regards to political correctness?

political correctness can mean anything. Your opposed to women being treated equaly? I wouldn't think you are, so you are politically correct?

[MarkMuses]

Men and women are not equal. Neither is superior. They are simply different. Different Neo you wacko.

Your PC equality crap persecutes men for being "over represented" in engineering for instance even though women aren't generally as interested in the subject. Gender is not a social construct. Wakey wakey...

[Neo2012]

Men and women are not equal. Neither is superior. They are simply different. Different Neo you wacko.

Your PC equality crap persecutes men for being "over represented" in engineering for instance even though women aren't generally as interested in the subject. Gender is not a social construct. Wakey wakey...

So you believe when a woman and a man, are both capable of being a nurse, the woman should get paid less? If yes your sexist. If no your politically correct.

[MarkMuses]

So you believe when a woman and a man, are both capable of being a nurse, the woman should get paid less? If yes your sexist. If no your politically correct.

They should get paid less if their name is Neo2012 and should be on permanent bed pan duties. Apart from that (important) clause, I think they should get paid based on meritocracy, which means the woman could be paid more than the man potentially. Now shove that into your PC moraliser and see if it smokes.

[ryoden]

political correctness can mean anything. Your opposed to women being treated equaly? I wouldn't think you are, so you are politically correct?

Actually as far as I am aware it is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, disability, and age-related contexts. In current usage, the term is primarily pejorative (negative effect).

The primary point there being negative effect, ie to use your example no i am all for women being treated equally however i am against picking women over men just becasue they are women (which is how I am using the term political correctness - and I believe I am correct in using it this way as I understand it)

EDIT
I should go on to say that in fairness the term political correctness does (or rather did) support the usage in the context to which you were referring by saying I am being politically correct, however that usage changed back as early as the 1990's. Currently the usage is as I stated pejorative so, I would have to come down on MM's usage as correct.

[Neo2012]

They should get paid less if their name is Neo2012 and should be on permanent bed pan duties. Apart from that (important) clause, I think they should get paid based on meritocracy, which means the woman could be paid more than the man potentially. Now shove that into your PC moraliser and see if it smokes.

So we agree. We're both PC?

[MarkMuses]

So we agree. We're both PC?

No, we are not both PC because I don't believe the concept of equality at group levels is reflected in the real, natural world. Nor would I wish it.

To impose by law a notion of group equality on others is fundamentally immoral. It conflicts with the meritocracy which I do believe in.

So while I recognize that men will excel over women in some fields for example, you reject that idea, and your cult-like programming tells you to assign bigotry as the cause for all occurrences of it.

Well, assuming you are the equalities robot I take you for that is.