Click here to watch the video of the result being announcedBritish people rejected Oswald Mosley's Fascism before, during and after World War 2, and rejected the National Front in the General Election of 1979. British voters have now conclusively rejected the BNP - twice; and there is no doubt that the BNP's defeat is a huge victory for the complementary strategies employed by modern Anti-Fascists.
Respect is due to Hope not Hate, One Million United Against the BNP, Nothing British About the BNP, Love Music Hate Racism, Unite Against Fascism, the Centre for Social Cohesion, Scotland United, Lancaster Unity, Antifa, Liverpool Antifascists, Edinburgh Anti-Fascist Alliance, Unity Web Ring and MANY others, to all Interfaith and liberal religious groups, to all Anti-Fascist campaigners on Facebook and You Tube, and to the millions of decent people who lend their support to Anti-Fascist campaigns.
Non-aligned, freelance, no-budget and DIY web activism played an important (largely unacknowledged) role in informing a new generation of voters about the dangers of supporting the BNP. As someone who dedicated 2 years to doing exactly this, for the record I don't vote Labour, I'm highly Euro-sceptic, and while respecting and learning from other cultures is important, I believe UNITY is more important than diversity, and would not support any extreme form of multi-culturalism where different races live side-by-side without any form of reciprocal integration. I also agree some sensible immigration controls are necessary in modern society.
Nick Griffin pretends "the establishment" only acknowledged the need to debate immigration because the BNP placed this issue on the agenda. In fact immigration has been hotly debated for decades before the BNP existed, and the BNP's direct forerunner - the NF - was formed by Nazis to EXPLOIT fears about immigration, to cynically sneak Nazi racism into mainstream politics. The BNP are right that some people are reluctant to discuss immigration for fear of being branded "racist", but the reason people have that fear is because of the decades of violence that NF and BNP thugs inflicted on immigrants. In other words if debate about sensible, non-racist immigration controls is lacking in the UK it is because of the disgusting actions of the NF and BNP!
bnpinfo
22 comments:
"Non-aligned, freelance, no-budget and DIY web activism played an important (largely unacknowledged) role in informing a new generation of voters about the dangers of supporting the BNP."
Damn right it did.
"In the Euro 2009 election, 94% of British voters actively voted against the BNP! Despite this, the BNP still chose to run over 300 candidates in the General Election on May 6th, 2010".
This is a strange comment. It ignores the fact that last years's results were very good for the BNP - 2 MEPs elected - and suggests that only large parties have the right to stand, effectively excluding smaller parties from the race. What percentage does the author think a party should get one year to have the right to stand the following year?
I voted Green who also were massively rejected last year. Does that mean they shouldn't have stood this year? One Green MP elected suggests not. In any case 300 lost BNP deposits are very welcome.
PR is coming in and smaller parties will have a better chance of winning seats, including the BNP. First Past The Post is coming to an end which means larger parties have to be more sensitive to public opinion on issues like immigration. That's how the BNP should be fought - on issues not on technicalities.
Thanks for embedding, much appreciated :)
The next hurdle is to stop the Lib Dems imposing proportional representation, as PR is an open door for the BNP
The next hurdle is to stop the Lib Dems imposing proportional representation, as PR is an open door for the BNP
What a ridiculous and patronising statement. The fact that the vast majority of voters are not represented fairly or at all in Parliament and that many vote tactically rather than from the heart because of a flawed sytem is far more important than whether a minor party gets a couple of MPs. The BNP will never be a threat to governing the UK and frankly why not allow them to represent their constituency? The argument that BNP representation is a threat to minorities is facetious since lack of representation pushes people to extreme actions which is more more of a personal threat.
Remember over 80% vote for parties other than the BNP or UKIP and their interests need to be satisfied!
"Non-aligned, freelance, no-budget and DIY web activism played an important (largely unacknowledged) role in informing a new generation of voters about the dangers of supporting the BNP."
Agreed.
"The next hurdle is to stop the Lib Dems imposing proportional representation, as PR is an open door for the BNP"
Agreed.
"This is a strange comment. It ignores the fact that last years's results were very good for the BNP - 2 MEPs elected"
Because of PR - which should be a warning to us all.
A very good article. Thank you.
"Respect is due to Hope not Hate, One Million United Against the BNP, Nothing British About the BNP, Love Music Hate Racism, Unite Against Fascism, the Centre for Social Cohesion, Scotland United, Lancaster Unity, Antifa, Liverpool Antifascists, Edinburgh Anti-Fascist Alliance, Unity Web Ring and MANY others, to all Interfaith and liberal religious groups, to all Anti-Fascist campaigners on Facebook and You Tube, and to the millions of decent people who lend their support to Anti-Fascist campaigns."
Well said. Didn't they all do well. :)
Griffins also beeing humiliated on the NWN forum poll about who should be leader.
Butler is miles ahead.
Best he doesnt stick out too far or griffin will slice his neck off in a pre emptive attack.
Democracy BNP style
"Respect is due to Hope not Hate, One Million United Against the BNP, Nothing British About the BNP, Love Music Hate Racism, Unite Against Fascism, the Centre for Social Cohesion, Scotland United, Lancaster Unity, Antifa, Liverpool Antifascists, Edinburgh Anti-Fascist Alliance, Unity Web Ring and MANY others, to all Interfaith and liberal religious groups, to all Anti-Fascist campaigners on Facebook and You Tube, and to the millions of decent people who lend their support to Anti-Fascist campaigns."
And the ordinary working-class people of Barking Dagenham Stoke Sandwell etc who got themselves down to the polling station and kicked the fashies in the ballots!
In the words of the Margi Clarke/Anhrefn song:
There's lots of us
There's lots of us
There's lots and lots and lots of us
We are the clutter from the gutter!
"The next hurdle is to stop the Lib Dems imposing proportional representation, as PR is an open door for the BNP"
Yes, they did get 2 MEPs but on a much reduced turnout which meant they achieved the hurdle percentage (was it 5%?). This is why Barny got an Assembly seat too.
6.2% Euro plays 1.9% GE.
I doubt they get any seats under PR in a GE.
You cannot fight the BNP simply by maintaining an electoral system that makes it very difficult for any other than the 3 main parties to pick up more than a handful of seats. The BNP may have won two MEPs under PR but they also won a lot of councillors under FPTP simply because Labour in particular ignored the concerns of a lot of its own supporters who then voted BNP.
PR looks like it's on its way as even the Labour Party is commenting on it favourably. It will make the main parties address issues like immigration instead of burying their heads and giving the BNP a free run.
Griffins going!
Wheres Wingfield? Blog not updated since february
As long as you have a world as unequal as this one and people expected to compete for housing, jobs and resources whilst a few have wealth beyond your imagination you will have parties like the BNP able to tap into peoples bitterness.
If ordinary people vote Labour it's not because they want it to ape the Tories in kissing the arses of the richest 5% of society or wage illegal wars on behalf of a radical rightwing US government.
From the Jewish Chronicle today
Full PR? No Thanks.
By Jonathan Hoffman
May 9, 2010
After the inconclusive election, a live issue in the UK is Proportional Representation (PR). The LibDems are pushing hard for concessions from the Conservatives as a condition for supporting them in a new government. Gordon Brown of Labour - who constitutionally remains Prime Minister until David Cameron goes to the Queen to tell her he can form a government - has reportedly offered the LibDems immediate legislation to introduce PR.
The first point to appreciate about PR is that there are many different forms of it, from the least radical to the most radical. The least radical is AV - Alternative Vote - which is what former Home Secretary Alan Johnson was pushing before the election. This is simply the ranking of choices within a single member constituency. After the votes are counted, if no candidate gets 50%+ of first preference votes, the bottom candidate is eliminated and her/his second preferences redistributed to the other candidates. This process continues until one candidate reaches 50%. In Hampstead and Kilburn for example, where I was on Thursday, this may well have led to the election of the third-placed LibDem rather than the Labour candidate, who won by 42 votes from the Conservative (the winner got 32.8%, the Conservative came second with 32.7% and the LibDem third, 31.2%). It seems fair to assume that most Labour voters, and many Conservative ones, would have put the LibDem in second place.
The most radical form of PR is 'closed party list' where the parties put their candidates in order and the number elected reflects the national vote. For Thursday's election this would give the Conservatives 36.1%, Labour 29% and the LibDems 23% of the seats (assuming votes were the same under PR as under 'first past the post' (FPP) - which of course they would not be). There is always a threshold minimum of votes a party has to achieve before it gets a seat. Often this is 5% - so no small Party would have achieved representation on Thursday's results (though again the votes would not have been the same as under FPP). In Israel it's 2% which explains why most Israelis cannot understand those in the UK who want change.
As the UK political constellation stands at present, radical PR would ensure the Conservatives are in permanent opposition to a leftist Labour/LibDem majority. That's why Gordon Brown had his 'deathbed conversion' to PR and is offering it to the LibDems from his bunker in Downing Street. It's also why David Cameron will go no further than to offer an 'all-party commission' to study the voting system, with possibly the mandate to make recommendations for a referendum.
For the vast majority of Jews in the UK, radical PR would be unwelcome to say the least. Just look at EDM 502, opposing the closing of the Universal Jurisdiction anomaly exploited by the Israel-bashers. Out of the 145 signatories, 139 were from Labour, the LibDems and their small party supporters. And support for the BNP would rise. Those who did not vote for the BNP on Thursday (because under FPP it is a 'wasted vote') would be able to vote for them in the hope that it would drive their support from 1.9% up to 5%. Remember that under radical forms of PR, the BNP won two European Parliament seats and one London Assembly seat (STV for the European elections, d'Hondt for the Assembly).
My prediction? The statesmanlike generalities from Clegg and Cameron will not last. There are huge differences between them - on Europe, on PR, on the timing and method of deficit cutting and on the appropriate size of government. Before the end of the year there will be a second election which will give the Conservatives an overall majority. There are many parallels with 1974 - except that then it was the incumbent, Ted Heath, who formed the short-lived first government, not Harold Wilson, the party leader who won the most seats and went on to win the second election decisively.
Griffins gone - announcement soon to be made.
Reymolds will have to work for aliving now
"Griffins gone - announcement soon to be made."
I won't hold my breath....
Anonymous said...
Griffins gone - announcement soon to be made.
Reymolds will have to work for aliving now
4:30 PM, May 09, 2010
Anymore info on that?
Anyone got anything og this Prick has gone story?
Had a look on NWN, British democracy forum, (but not stormshite, which is 'overloaded'!!)
nothing there?
I expect to get some stick from supporters of PR for having posted this article, but those who support PR because it'd be good for the Green Party need to know that...
1. PR will be even better for the BNP
2. I vote Green, and I still oppose PR
3. The Greens won their 1st MP without PR
As for claims suggesting my analysis "ignores the fact that last years's results were very good for the BNP" - it doesn't. My argument is BASED ON the fact that last year's result were very good for the BNP. As for claiming my argument "suggests that only large parties have the right to stand" again my argument does not suggest that AT ALL. Equally there is nothing "patronising" about suggesting "PR is an open door for the BNP", because...
1. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it isn't a FACT
2. If you look at pro-BNP chat-rooms BNP supporters are screaming for PR
And Lib Dem and Green supporters can choose to help the BNP achieve this IF they really want to, but (I'll say it again) THE GREENS WON THEIR FIRST MP WITHOUT PR
It takes very little political sophistication to realise that PR is only superficially more democratic than 1st-past-the-post.
The danger of a hung parliament is that, in commanding the balance of power, a party that came 3rd in a fair election can end up dictating terms to the party that did best in that election - thereby effectively dictating terms to an entire nation despite the fact that they LOST the election. This is self-evidently anti-democratic, and it's exactly what's happening now with the Lib Dems (as the Lib Dems try to negotiate concessions from the Tories in exchange for offering to form a viable electoral pact with them).
Similarly the danger of PR is also that, if and when a minority party commands the balance of power, a party that did badly in a fair election can end up dictating terms to parties that did well. Even worse is the fact that the Lib Dems are now using the DIS-proportionate and UN-representative power given them by this hung parliament to try and force the Tories to institutionalise a system which WILL (if instituted) open the door to the BNP.
Whatever people's philosophical leanings as regards the underlying and theoretical intentions of PR, in the cold light of actual reality the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the facts of the situation are staring everyone in the face - I don't like these facts either, but then again, neither do I like the BNP.
Anti-Fascists MUST oppose PR
From Nick Griffin's Griffin's Post Election Address, as featured on Stormfront, quote...
"In 1983, the BNP fought 54 seats and polled 14,000 votes.
In 1987, the BNP fought 2 seats and polled 563 votes.
In 1992, the BNP fought 13 seats and polled 7,000 votes.
In 1997, the BNP fought 54 seats and polled 35,000 votes.
In 2001, the BNP fought 33 seats and polled 47,000 votes.
In 2005, the BNP fought 117 seats and polled 192,746 votes.
In 2010, the BNP fought 339 seats and polled 563,743 votes.
Based on yesterday's impressive vote totals, the BNP would win in excess of 60 seats in Westminster under a PR system."
Obviously Griffin's address conveniently ignores how this year's vote is well down on the million-odd votes the BNP scored last year, but it's not just BNP supporters who are screaming for PR, it's Cyclops himself
Griffins going if not gone. High level BNP know it
Post a Comment