Thetownend.com

i dont even know all the options available?
and have only had flyers from bnp and lib dems through my door.
anyway,who you buggers voting for?

Sock snakes

Havent decided yet, im in the south east so we do have one green MEP, have always voted labour until Iraq and subsequently voted socialist labour, however there policy on europe does not sit with me- i like europe. Still undecided.

Here are your full list of options, including all your fruit and nut options

http://www.swindon.gov.uk/statementofparties04jun2009.pdf (http://www.swindon.gov.uk/statementofparties04jun2009.pdf)

We can vote for the Cornish Independance Party, Katie Hopkins from the Apprentice or the Pensioners Party in association with Murray Mints.

I might damage my vote by writing "Evil cow" next to Hopkins.

Ukip for me

We have an option of the Jury Team up here...seems like a collection of independents and they sound ok...I can't find a racist bit, or a nasty anti-foreigner bit...they seem to want greater accountability and more checks and balances in government and parliament.  Am I missing something or are they quite good?

(awaits someone pointing out the bit that make the BNP look moderate).

I believe they pick their candidates by text message vote, so it'll probably be voting for Susan Boyle.

Edit: Wikipedia reckons Esther Ransen might stand for them. Ace, get Lumley in as well, I like the I'm a Celebrity get me into Power party.

I'm going to roll the decision dice later, I will let you know the outcome as that's who I'll be voting for.

Already sent my vote off, lib dems.

I'm yet to decide.

http://no2eu.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOfv47sho_U

i have a choice of tory, labour, lib dem and green here. the only leaflet i've had was tory, so fuck that.

i'll vote but only to vote against the tories.

not a single BNP candidate in oxfordshire as far as i can see...

www.socksnakesex.com

If you build it they will come.

ukip for me and Mrs Chalkies Shorts. I'm anti Europe so its a no brainer for me.

I really dont know.

Probably Lib Dem,bit worried about the BNP getting in though.Who is the tactical anti BNP choice?

The Yardies?

Green for me, i actually think they may take 3rd from labour here.

Unfortunately, I'd say there is probably a good chance of them getting a seat. According to some rough calculations last time round they were only 25k votes short in the West Midlands (1.4m total votes) and 35k votes short in the North West (2.1m total votes). Though both of those regions are losing a seat this time round which will make it harder for them. For tactical anti-BNP voting, its any of the big 3 and UKIP. You can't get any more tactical than that due to the way they allocate the seats through proportional representation.

On the plus side, there is a good chance Labour will come 4th. Which will be as funny as fuck, no matter which party you support / vote for. I wonder what bollocks Brown will come up with to explain it and to turn it in to a victory for Labour and a mandate for change.

I can see Labour getting a drubbing tomorrow.

I'll be voting for the English Democrats.

Jokes aside, I'm reading through each party's policies and manifestos now:

• BNP - No.
• Christian Party - May as well give control back to the Church, no thanks.
• Tories - I'm not going to support Cameron's spin and popularity contest.
• English Democrats - Spent 5 minutes thinking of four policies and 5 minutes to write about them on the website so far as I can tell. The population density stats are completely inaccurate also.
• Fair Pay To Fair Trade - Single World Currency?...Errrmmm
• Jury Team - Cop out for people who can't decide. Probably the people who will abstain in a referendum.
• Lib Dems - Website has crashed worse than the economy, I can't get on it
• No2EU - Empty seat policy = lazy wankers
• Pensioners Party - Seems the oldies can only think about themselves.
• Libertas - Vote for us, we want to piss the money up the wall and not big bad Brussels
• Socialist Labour Party - What do you get when you cross a trade union with Jim Royle? A credible political party, my arse!
• Green Party - Think creating 1m green jobs will sort out the 3m unemployed?
• Labour Party - Leader is an unpopular, fat Scottish version of Davey C. Usually I like an underdog, but this isn't fucking Braveheart
• UKIP - Will the Euro be able to influence whether we stay in the EU? It will come down to the party in power of the UK. Wasted vote
• Wai D Your Decision - The candidates of the movement, if elected as MEPs, will undertake at their own expense the creation of an internet site where citizens will have the chance to express, at any moment, during the entire legislative process, their own opinions Basically a bigger version of the TEF political debates and Talk Talk chaos theories i.e. bollocks
• Katie Olivia Hopkins - Couldn't even win The Apprentice, how the fuck you gonna win this love?

So I've concluded they're all a bit shit and I can't decide. Looks like Jury Team after all  :D

My previous post has more content than their manifesto.

Whilst I'm all in favour of democracy, they really need to do something about all the morons that stand in elections. Maybe increasing the deposit substantially so they don't waste everyone's time. Bunch of wankers.

Don't care. The 4 policies on their website are good enough to earn my vote on this occasion. It's a Euro election and therefore i'm not too bothered about their policies on the economy, NHS etc.

i still aint sure who i will vote.have to disagree about wasted votes si.you vote who you think best.no matter who that is.

I voted green in the end, the green party have an MEP in the south east and the BNP is challenging them for the last seat so every vote counts down here.

Ill probably go UKIP to be honest. 

http://votematch.co.uk/europe

That confirmed my choice which is UKIP/ Tory/ Libertas In that order.  I will vote UKIP.

I don't think a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote because they won't get elected. Of course that post was only my opinion but UKIP simply want to pull out of the EU. I just wonder what good they're going to have in influencing commission's proposals. Being very UK specific is only going to lead to isolation and carry no clout because other member states will possibly get pissed off with the discent shown towards the EU. I suppose the message it sends is really the only reason to vote for them.

I personally think if you vote for the likes of UKIP then you'll have to follow that vote up in the next domestic election in order for it to have any meaningful context because that's the only way to push through such policies.

I think I will vote for Lib Dem.

good points si.

No one really gives a toss who gets elected in the Euro elections and to a lesser degree the council elections, so a lot of people use them solely to send a message to the main parties, then vote properly in general elections. But it does kind of work, if UKIP get a lot of votes the main parties will veer more towards anti Europe policies. The same with the BNP, if they get votes the main party will veer towards policies such as tightening immigration.

For everyone voting UKIP its worth pointing out that they are pretty much a splinter party from the Tories. If they get a lot of votes and go more Euro sceptic, its quite possible that people will start switching back (candidates and voters) to the Tories. In effect its almost a vote for the Tories as they are the only real anti Europe party.

I think you're right about the message thing Jonny and that's what I didn't explain very well in my original post, I didn't want to vote to simply send a message out there otherwise I'd have just voted for the Green Party.

I was considering not voting at all because the Euro Parliament isn't very meaningful but an extra vote for BNP opposition would be a moral victory. A few parties have some very scary 'facts' and propaganda which have wound me up. BNP using dead war heroes to justify their fascist views was the most notable example.

Two very good points. I will vote UKIP mainly to show that I am not happy with the TORY position on Europe.
In the next General Election I would vote Tory because the first past the post system means the smaller fringe parties stand no chance.
Hopefully the results will encourage the Tories to be more euro sceptic.
What I want is a common market, which is what we voted for when last given the chance. I'd rather pull out all together now that it has gone further than that.
History shows that all artificially created unions never last & eventually break apart usually through direct action by the people/ war. I know that may seem far fetched when talking about the EU, but it has happened that way in virtually all cases. (The former Yugoslavia,  Eastern Block, & British Empire being the latest examples)

Valid points Phil, and that is why I voted UKIP this morning.

The EU are a bunch of hypocrites. They go on about green issues, yet twice a month, they transfer everything to Strasbourg so France can be the head of the EU. What a waste of money.

In all of those cases, the unions were not formed through democracy which the EU was. That is the big difference and is the reason why the EU will last and won't eventually break apart - it will just get bigger and bigger.

Anti EU sentiments are higher at present solely due to the state of the economy, when things go bad people withdraw to their national (or other) identity. Lack of jobs? Blame it on the EU allowing in all the immigrants. Companies being undercut by foreign imports? Blame it on the EU allowing free trade. Its the same reason for the BNP getting increased support when things are going bad, just substitute nationality for skin colour.

Just popped down to vote, did anyone else fall about laughing at the rediculously long ballot paper?

Seeing the Greens on a three foot long bit of paper given to each voter was deliciously ironic.

Yes - marvellous. Surely they could have come up with something more manageable - It's going to be a nightmare unfolding and counting those !

Yes madness. I put about four folds in it and it still wasn't small enough.

That's confirmed sock snakes for me.

i voted ukip in the end

I thought I had to make a paper plane out of it !!

I can't be bothered to vote, whoever get's in will just be on the gravy train and coin it in anyway

Tories keep putting leaflet's through my door - I am tempted to stick them in an envelope return them and tell them to stop sending me their propaganda as they have no chance of me voting for them

Labour for me - I love the roller coaster red rooster batty boys !

But that was my point... albeit not very well made.. The European UNION is NOT formed democratically. The last chance I had to vote I was asked if I wanted to remain part of a common market.
We even had the chance to vote on the lisbon treaty denied to us because the Labour party were too scared os the result so broke their manifesto pledge.
Even in those countries that did have a chance to vote on the Lisbon Treaty democracy was ignored. The french and the Irish voted NO, so the EU just changed a few words & will ignore that decision.
Finally most of the laws are NOT made by the elected parliament. They are made by the commision which is NOT elected, but appointted by goverments. Lets face it thge people of Britain would NEVER have elected the likes of the Kinnocks, & Mandelson. They were just given the jobs by Labour.
FYI the EU does NOT allow free trade, (except within the cartel) the whole idea is to set up barriers in the form of tariffs against other countries (including some of the worlds poorest).
Even inside the EU boundaries the trade is hardly "free trade" not when artificial quotas are put in place to prop up inefficient or non existent farming pushing up the price of food to you & me.
As for immigration, our goverment is to blame, not the EU. Surely most people know that. Other EU countries opted out  of a free for all within the borders of the expanded EU we didn't. The EU doesn't tell us that we should be a soft touch for illegal immigrants. Allowing known terrorists & criminals to not only come here, but to remain here on benefits paid for by you & me.
The initial idea of a common market certainly had its merits, but todays Europe is unaccountable, & corrupt to such an extent that it makes the fiddles at Westminster look whiter than white.

pensioner party

Democracy doesn't mean getting a vote on every single issue there is and the fact that you don't doesn't mean that it isn't democratic. All of the unions you mentioned were formed with absolutely no democratic process, they broke down when democracy was introduced in those countries. Its also worth pointing out that most of the countries involved in the unions you quoted can't wait to join the EU, something their citizens want and agree to through democratic processes.

Whilst the last direct vote we had was on joining the EC (or whatever it was called back then), we have regular opportunities to vote at a local, national and international level - all of which give you an input as to how things are run. You also have plenty of other opportunities under our democratic system to have your say - contacting your elected representative, joining a demonstration, calling a phone in or even standing as a candidate yourself.

I'm obviously very pro EU, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with the way it is being run - it is a complete and utter crock of shit on so many levels. We should be concentrating on improving the way it is run, rather than wasting time on talking about leaving it - which is bit pointless as I'm pretty certain there isn't actually any defined process for a country to leave the EU.

It also seems a bit stupid going on about the EU, when we've been in a union for the last 200 years or whatever which has just as many, if not more critics. We should sort out the situation in the UK before worrying about the EU.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. The vote was actually to stay in the common market. Heath lied to us at the time & said political union was not on the table. (Cabinet minutes released since show this to be a lie).  If we voted to join democartically it was all based on a lie. (Hitler was voted in democratically on a lie too)
Agree the countries recently joining want to, but they do so beacause they know that the EU will be a cash cow to them. ireland initially looked at the EU that way, but now the money is going east they are changing their view point. I'd rather my cash went elsewhere in the world where people really are starving, or better still just let them trade with us on a free & fair basis instead of inposing import tariffs.
Democracy I agree shouldn't be based upon votes for every single thing, but all of the main political parties have a veated interest in staying in europe if only because if they are kicked out of british politics they can go to brussels & nmake even more money from the system. People like myself at a general election vote for a UK goverment. I wouldn't vote UKIP at a general election because I know they wouldn't get in. So I vote for the party closest to my views on what I consider the important issues (including but not just europe)
You mention the union that is the UK. Really this underlines my point. It was not created democratically. The english conquered the rest. This too is in the process of breaking up stating with the now republic of Ireland., now we have devolved goverment in Scotland & Wales where just like the EU the Goverment tries to keep them happy by subsidising them (Free University education & HNS prescriptions) but given time they too will leave.
As for the process of leaving, why not. If the Ukraine can leave the USSR, or India the British Empire we can leave the EU.

I agree with most of your points regarding the EU; money is wasted, it is generally poorly run, the money doesn't go to the people and countries it should, the CAP is a joke and we should get the opportunity to vote on things more. I just don't think withdrawing is the answer, getting the problems sorted makes a lot more sense to me.

I want us to stay in the EU, I want more power handed over the the EU but I also want it run properly. I also agree with a vote on whether we should stay in the EU or not and if we do stay, the form that membership should take.

But I think more pressing is to sort out the status of the UK, as that is a far bigger issue for most people. I'd love to see the end of it myself as I'm sick and tired of being British, I'm English and proud of it.

Having read that we probably agree on more things than we disagree on.
Where we differ is that if we vote to stay in the EU, then I think it should be about a common market. Not a political United States of Europe.
Re Britain, if the Scots, Welsh & N Irish vote for independence then let them have it. I have no problem with that. If they want to stay in then it should be under the same terms for ALL of the component parts.  But then I hold the same view on Europe. Give us a vote (as you say). If we vote to get out great if not at least it is a democratic decision, but I want less power for them not more. (certainly whilst people who can't get elected to Westminster are appointted to make decisions in europe)

What pisses me off about that is the only people who don't ever get a vote on independence is the English. Why haven't we been given a vote on independence? Though admittedly it would really be a vote on dissolving the UK.

Unusually I can't be arsed to read this thread, so apologies if it's already been posted, but the voting slip, must have been the biggest in British democratic history...getting in it in the slit,...ooh er, I miss Birdy on here.

The size of that voting slip was indeed ridiculous.

Yes, it's been noted. It's daft as a brush.

It was i agree. We had 15 Candidates/parties here, including the Animal party and others i hadn't heard of.

i read somewhere that some of the parties complained to the electoral commission that people were folding them before handing them over to voters, thus meaning those further down on the list go unnoticed.

if politicians can't trust the general public to unfold a pice of paper, why give them a choice to vote?

Its amazing they haven't started using some form of computer touch screen terminal type system. No wasted paper, no need for people to count the votes and we'd have the results immediately. With everything else we trust to computers I don't see why this would be a problem. Though maybe offering a paper vote for oldies.

Didn't they do something like that in America?

Ken Livingstone once said "if democracy changed anything they'd abolish it."

I voted green earlier.


This thing confirmed it, Green top, the rest in a bunch, except UKIP miles behind.

Voting for any of the candidates (including UKIP) legitimises the EU.

So I spoiled my ballot paper big time. It's the only anti-EU protest I can think of. Not turning out means you don't care.

My eldest daughter who was eligible to vote for the first time has just won a second part time job in Marks & Sparks. It means that she will be working seven days a week, although only about 36 hours altogether. And guess what? Sparky's found out about the other job and so changed their mind as under the EU Working Time Directive you are not allowed to work seven days in a row.

That is the reality of what they are doing to us. So she voted tonight. She drew a big lump of steaming turds surrounded by flies on her ballot paper. Go girl.

You're a family of renegades TT.

Out of curiousity TT, how did you go about spoiling yours? Real poo?

I wrote:

"GET US OUT OF THE EU, IT IS EVIL AND CORRUPT" across all of the boxes. Sideways like.

My good lady did something similar, unprompted.

My eldest lad is 17, he couldn't vote but he was up for wiping his arse on the thing.

Why go through all the effort of going to vote and then doing it wrong on purpose? Will anyone be impressed

Then why not vote for a party that says they will?

I sit here happy that my single vote for the lib dems will do more to keep us in the EU than the entire Talk Talk family's self-congratulatory ballet scribblings will to get us out of it.

Just casted my vote.

I voted Lib Dem too Ben.

Ermm OK.

I don't give a fuck if anybody is impressed or not.

What do you think the EU Parliament does exactly? I will tell you. NOTHING. All it does is to rubber stamp the directives that the unelected EU Commission produces. You can't elect EU Commissioners, they are decided by a clique of nutters.

So voting for a party or a candidate achieves precisely zero, nothing, zilch. It doesn't matter who sits in that parliament, they can't change a damned thing.

However, spoilt ballot papers are counted and recorded. THAT is my protest vote.

See above. UKIP want us out of the EU but they are more than happy to go to Brussels and Strasbourg as MEPs and milk the EU teat. Hypocrites. As is anybody who votes for them in Euro elections.

I voted UKIP. Get in there!

So you are pro-EU and anti-EU.

Make your mind up, child.

This coming from a man who encourages drawing little pictures on voting forms ;)

 :D

Another hypocrite here

sorry mr unstable? Your not going to stalk me now, are you?

What a suprise Talk Talk resorting to abusing people again.Every thread is turning into this shit now.

hahaha,the last couple of pages have made me laugh like fuck.
i considered just putting my ballot paper in the box blank.how would that one be counted?

I voted Lib Dem as well.

Stupid cunt ;-)

James Purnell has resigned and told Brown to go now. Heseltine moment anyone?

Brown won't survive this.

talk talk you really are a bit susan boyle arent you?

He'll cling on for another 11 months though sadly.

Nope, this is pretty damn serious, Purnell is not the type to break ranks, which makes me think that more will follow.

I imagine Johnson will be brought in for damage control.

I reckon if/when Labour get a tonking (lower than 2nd) tonight - Brown will walk sooner rather than later.

Ha this is Labour and power hungry Brown here. There's no way he'll walk.

I'll bet you a tenner he's resigned by a fortnight today.

how the hell did this thread turn into personal abuse?

It's a politics thread, and this is the internet.

shut your fat faces!

now the voting is over what do people think the results will be?

HIV positive

maybe in your case

dont think we find out about the Euros till the weekend do we?

Sunday supposedly after all of Europe has voted, local elections will start coming out later today.

I'm still unsure how the labour deserters will use their vote - Lib Dems might get more votes but I think there'll be a rise in 'other' parties.

If Labour finish 3rd or are landslided it'll be deadly for Brown because the amount of labour MP's who officially want him out will be mega significant.... Erm, innit.

i should have known better :)

If UKIP win Brussels will demand another election next year and plough on regardless.

Rumour is David Miliband is quitting the cabinet tomorrow as well.

Who is Susan Boyle?

Seriously I do not know. Erm, and probably don't want to either.

Spoilt.

I think you get the general EU philosophy.

It doesn't make fuck all difference what any 'citizen' of the EU thinks, they will carry on with their plans whatever.

You just have to look at history to see what happens to every power hungry political fuck up organisation, whether it is Nazi Germany, Communist Russia/Eastern Bloc, Socialist Britain or soon to be the United States of America or the EU - they devour themselves from within because they are inherently corrupt and self serving and unsustainable. They go bang. I can't wait.

Bring it on you megalomaniac twats.

Hey hey hey

This election has absolutely nothing to do with UK domestic politics, apart from the fact that the House of Commons is now an irrelevance when 70-80% of our laws are sourced by Brussels.

Why are people so ignorant about what the EU is about? Voting along UK party lines is about as much use as a third armpit.

I voted for the Jury Team (terrible name I grant you). They've received a lot of criticism.

My opinion is that a lot of the fall of parliament is due to old fashioned and majorly flawed traditions and practices that should not be continued.

I'm not hugely polictically minded, but I voted for what I felt represented my thoughts the most.

Don't patronise me with your hey, hey, hey's.

You're the biggest and bestest political mind on TEF - I get it.

Jury Team is interesting Rich.

I think it awakes a feeling of non-political party voting. I also think it is a bad move for democracy in that it splinters opinion into individual's take on the world. Don't get me wrong, I stood as an independent at the last General Election but looking back I think it was a shite concept.

Have a read of this, from a very learned man:

http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2009/3/8/4115740.html (http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2009/3/8/4115740.html)

Better to get rid of politicians and governments completely IMHO (cue abuse from Davis :-p )

It will all depend on just how bad the local and euro election results are. If they are bad then the chances are that Brown will be gone within weeks. If they are really bad then he'll definitely be gone within a couple of weeks, or he'll say a big "fuck you" to the Labour party and call a general election instead - which would make sense as the government would be in pieces.

Bearing in mind the shit that has happened recently, especially the expenses debacle (which Labour are somewhat unfairly feeling the full brunt of) and the resignations I've got a feeling the results will be really, really bad and will be a fatal blow to the government.

Rich, is being passionate about politics and your children's future wrong?

I'm at the age where I think about their future more than my own and with nearly a half century of living through the rule of others can't you cut me a bit of slack?

I care, I really do.

Looks like Swindon will be in the news tomorrow. Apparently Michael Wills (North Swindon MP) is the elections minister (wasn't aware of that before tonight) and all the shit over the folded ballot papers (resulting in people being unable to find the UKIP box) is flying directly in his direction. UKIP are suggesting they might mount a legal challenge to have the elections re-run:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8084086.stm

its not about cutting you some slack, its about not having you talk down to others.

Fuck off shorty

[url width=323 height=254]http://people.southwestern.edu/~burksr/test/images/popcorn.jpg[/url]

Deal.

And that means out of post.

sorry to disapoint sonic, wont argue with alan. The man is not someone you can debate with, he is always right about everything and everyone else is either corrupted or mislead.

Presuming your looking for the technicality of him having resigned but not yet been replaced.

In which case I'd have thought Harman (god help us) would be Joe Kinnearing.

I couldn't name a prominent labour candidate for replacing him, which is why i think he will still be in post in two weeks.

milliband or alan johnstone

I voted for the pensioners party because i like the idea of the european parliament being full of people in wooly cardigans, spending their money on milk and cat food.

That's why if we remain in the EU I'd actually favour the Lisbon Treaty being ratified.

UKIP voters in not terribly bright shock :) Like sonic said, if you're too thick to unfold a piece of paper to find the party you want to vote for, maybe it's for the best if you don't get to vote for your chosen party - a kind of politicial Darwinian selection

You mean I might not be right?  ???

Johnson is the one their talking about it.

Personally I'd like to see them give it to Cruddas because then we might genuinely get some policy differences between the three main parties.

Milliband-Cameron-Clegg would be the holy trinity of blandness.

Oi ! I voted UKIP. I really think that that was the best option. What Talk Talk says is quite right about the commisioners being the real power in the EU. Unelected & unaccountable.
Where I disagree is that spoiling the ballot paper will send a message.

While I agree that the EU is a mess, I don't see why the instant logic of that is to pull out of it altogether. The NHS certianly isn't perfect, but all the parties want to improve it, not pull out altogether. With the EU, the general consensus seems to be that we either leave or bow down and accept a European Superstate. Why does there not seem to be a middle option?

What, you managed to unfold your ballot paper all by yourself? :) On reflection, it probably says more about how thick the UKIP leadership think their voters are rather than the voters themselves

I forgot it was polling day. Oops.

Good news everyone, Sirallan Sugar is being made a Lord and will be brought into the cabinet.

This is class :D

I cannot read a sentence beginning with "Good new everyone" without doing it in the voice of Dr Hubert Farnsworth.

There was a thread on that a few weeks ago I think, but it's true. Not sure if there are any other phrases that I always read in a specific voice...maybe "I'll be back"

FFS, that has to be the final (Jack) straw. Gordon, you're fired!

I quite like this report from the Grauniad about demonstrations in the streets following TV debates between the president and one of his main rivals as part of their election campaigns:


I want to form an angry mob with pitchforks and everything to march on no 10 chanting "Gordon Brown, impolite person, shame on you" :)

I want the NHS binned as well  :D


Uh, because it doesn't exist?

Ah yes, I'd forgotten the manifesto commitment from all the parties to help the EU change their name to the Galactic Empire and start building a Death Star, my apologies.

Umm, there was supposed to be one called the common marrket which Heath took us into. He knew at the time that the plan amongst the elite was to turn it into the US of Europe, but lied to us about it.

English democrats have just won in doncaster.

Just looked them up. They want devolution for England. Hadn't heard of them til 2 or 3 days ago. Can't believe they've got a councillor!

Edit: Actually he's Mayor, isn't he?

Yeah think so. Think he used to be labour

The Hartlepool fella is hanging around isn't he!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/8084342.stm

Couldn't give a monkeys

So who voted UKIP?

I did

So did anyone actually vote for Labour? Or know anyone that did? I didn't / don't.

I've got a feeling the Euro results for Labour will be even worse than anyone thought they would be. I don't think they will be that good for the Tories either, or Lib Dem to a lesser degree. People are pissed off and I can see UKIP far exceeding even their most wildest expectations.

I'm hoping it happens as it could do the trick to get Brown out. Not because I'm a Tory and want Cameron as PM (though I do) but because Brown has totally lost control and is even weaker than John Major ever was. With the state of the economy we need a strong government to sort things out, which means Brown needs to go.

Interesting that if Brown does go and his replacement doesn't call a general election, it looks quite likely that Queenie will force the issue one way or another so we'll get one pronto.

Euro elections aside, Labour has been comprehensively trashed in the local elections.

GOOD.

Stupid people and self deluded racists.

Yeah but when the proper elections come along...you know the ones that really matter all the Lemmings will be back voting for the same old crap.....

Looking at the local election results Labour didn't even win a council or retain one.

shame about lancashire and hertfordshire.

I am far from racist ben.

not even a self-deluded one?

I am left wing but fucking hate Europe and most of what it stands for. So not racist - delusional, maybe?

Heres that fish ben

or stupid?

Doh!!!!!

I guess you did then Ben, under your first description   ;)

Too easy.

I'm intrigued though, what was the thought process behind going with the "first description" and not the latter?

Too much offence, or not enough?

As you say , too easy.... not much thought required  :bye:

BNP won a seat. This is why northerners shouldn't be allowed.

Very, very sad news.  Even if you don't deplore racism (which of course you should, it's ugly, ignorant and lacking in any substance) how could anyone listen to Nick Griffin trying to make a logical argument for more than one minute and think "good point, well made"?  It baffles me, I really thought the British public was brighter than that.

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

deja vu on that quote.

Labour came 2nd in Wales.

Wales for fucks sakes.

Does seem a bit of surprise down here - Wales is a good indicator of how labour are looking at the mo - change is in the air.

Labour getting fucked over in Wales is pretty big news too.

these elections mean jack shit really though.i'm sure many like myself will vote a lesser party in the euros, but not in a local-general election.

I think statistically Arriba is right - people do tend to vote for lesser parties more in European elections, and local elections as well.  Come the general election people tend to vote in a more mainstream way.

I think one of the most worrying things, and it has been this way for years, is voter turnout in this country.  Apathy, a potentially dangerous collective attitude, is rife in Britain.  I've met so many people who tell me that "I've never voted" as though they are proud of that.  Is it just me, or does it not make sense that if you choose not to try and make a difference on one of the very few times you can, you lose your right to an opinion? 

Rant over.

Apparently in Cornwall, Labour finished 6th behind the "greasy haired twats" in the Cornish Nationalists. Wherever you sit politically, that's pretty fucking hilarious

Yeah of course.

But It's a shame that the majority of people aren't willing to take the time to understand the affects of the different elections instead of using everything other than a way of hinting dissatisfaction.

It doesn't help that they double up the euro elections with local ones, I guess it's some sort of money saving exercise and one that I think happens throughout Europe; but if you want people to take these elections on there own merits - and I there you can't get much more different in scope between local and Europe - then they should really separate them out.

Never mind Griffin, look at their shiny new MEP, Andrew Brons, a hardcore Nazi for over 40 years. He started out in an outfit called the National Socialist Movement - so we're not talking people winging the term "Nazi" around as a term of abuse here, these nutters were out and proud hardcore Nazis and declared it in everything they said and did. He went on from there to the NF, "rising" to become NF leader, a period where he was vitriocally anti-black and anti-Jewish, before moving on to the "Oh no we're not Nazis, honest guv" BNP. Like I keep saying, you don't have to scratch the BNP very hard at all to find deep hardcore Nazis. Anyone who voted for these shits should be forced to visit the Holocaust Museum and hang their fuckwit heads in shame

I completely disagree on this. If you're not interested enough to vote then you probably don't have much of an opinion anyway, but if you suddenly develop one over an issue is it void because you missed a chance to vote 3 years ago?

It's the same thing with people who make a distinction about people who go and spoil there ballot paper instead of not turning up. It doesn't make any difference and it doesn't matter.

I'm sure most people have a granddad, great uncle, or something who 'died for our right to vote'. It's not a right to vote unless you also have the right not to vote - for whatever reason they want.

To add to the National Socialist Movement madness, I believe that they used to celebrate Hitler's birthday.

They deliberately delayed founding the party so they could found it on his birthday IIRC. We really are talking hardcore fruitcake here

It's interesting that the Tories haven't really been the ones to gain where labour have fallen, I guess they'll be using the same EU protest blah blah blah excuse that labour will.

Edit: that might have just been the results I've seen come in though.

People of course have a right not to vote.  But surely those people don't then have a right to complain about the political situation when they have essentially opted out of said system?

Maybe they felt that none of the candidates represented them enough. Maybe they don't like the system as a whole and feel that voting will only give it integrity. Either way, if they feel about something strongly now, then they'll probably more likely to vote in the next election.

Just noticed the top left counter on the bbc. There's a green 1, is that the green party or one of the welsh/Scottish parties?

I see where you're coming from, but in my experience most people who don't vote do so from a standpoint of "I'm not interested in politics" - and I can't understand that.  Politics affects everyone.  I'm not saying that the sytem is perfect, but as it is, voting is the only time you get to influence to political landscape - I therefore see it as a responsibility.  

Confusingly there are two green ones.  The lighter green one is The Green Party.  The darker green one is Plain Cymru.

Edit: I think I was looking at something different to you.  Just turned to BBC2 and there is only one green one.  Now I'm confused.  I'm also pissed and colour blind.

But you make an impact to the political landscape by not voting, all of the parties will be desperate to find out what they can do to mobilise the people who haven't voted. It's a big shouting yell of get my attention with something I'll vote for.

But do most non-voters not vote to, as you say, make an impact, or do they not vote through apathy and ignorance?  I think we both know that the majority just aren't interested and can't see how politics affects their life - and I think this is a big problem.  I just cannot abide people saying it doesn't affect them, or that they are not interested, and then complaining about political issues.  We need to somehow get regular people interested in politics.  If the expenses scandal has done nothing else, it has got people in my office talking about politics for the first time in 2 years.  They've even shut up about Eastenders.  This can only be a good thing.

Same. I think it was the welsh people. Red-Green colour blindness (which I think you have like me) is supposed to make it easier to tell the difference between different shades of green/red, just not green and red next to each other. Or something.

Think the green's might have just won a seat this time.

It's sad when you get "It's not a good result for the BNP, only up 1%". Nice that the green's beat ukip (in central london) I think.

Did anybody else find it a bit of a distraction at the French open where the back walls say BNP Paribas or something?

Haven't seen much of the French Open, been at work then doing dull family stuff.  Any vote for the BNP is a bad result for this country.

Watched bits. There was that good match where Federer came back from 2-0 sets down, day after Nedal went out I think. The commentators talked about the Federer Wobble, I've turned it into a dance.

BNP Paribas is a pretty big company, one of the three big banks in France, they also own Arval (used to be PHH) who have their UK head office at Windmill Hill.

Back on subject. I'm disappointed that it's the BNP and UKIP which have made gains on the general disillusionment with labour, but then the right wing always offer the easy selfish option, so I'm not really that surprised.

There's something wrong when the freemarket love in breaks down and people respond by heading further to the right. Where's the thatcher hate gone?

Not sure you can read too much in to the extra votes for BNP and UKIP as there hasn't been massive swings to them. Even then its difficult to say for sure why people have voted for them, is it because they support their policies or because they are pissed off with all of the main parties in the UK?

I'd hope it's people being pissed off, but both parties make the easy play on blame. BNP go for the nationalist immigartion angle; UKIP also play on the nationalism vote, but back it up with silly claims.

You only have to go to UKIP's website, there's the picture of churchhill (nationalism) and the ridiculous claim that the EU costs £40mil a day (it's about a third of that at worst), and then you get the claim that 75% of our laws come from the EU. I'm yet to meet a UKIP voter who could name one.

Two BNP NEP's now.

BNP win another seat at Labour's expense. I despair at the freaks up north I really do.

I've never been a big flag waving patriot, I don't really think it's very British, but there's always been something about us as a people which has made me proud. Two BNP seats is making me ashamed. I'm going for a fag.

Aye. Seeing that smug fuckwit Griffin giving v signs and lording it to the press makes me quite angry :(

It's fucking horrible.

Think I'll pick up my angry disappointment tomorrow morning. Night TEF.

Surely theres a strong argument the other way round - how can you truly complain about the system when you are legitimising it by participating in it?

Fraudelent mediums act, booster seats for kids,banning of bull bars on cars. Here are three,stupid laws but just naming some.

Take it you're being ironic DRS?

yeah a little bit but they are laws from the Eu still.

Not a stupid law in the slightest. They serve no purpose outside the Australian outback and have been shown in tests to be lethal to children at speeds as low as 10mph.

But still a law which was my main point.

Just because you disagree with something it doesn't make you (or me) right. The EU does indeed cost that amount (in fact it's a VERY conservative figure). That works out at £14 billion a year which is 25% of the overall cost (which includes the cost of implementing EU directives).
Whats wrong with being nationalist any way ? You should not confuse nationalism with Racism. The SNP is a nationalist party too are they OK because they are socialists ?
I would NEVER, EVER vote BNP, but am quite happy to "lend" my vote to UKIP in europe.

I think Ben was trying to say that people go to extremes when they are pissed off without knowing much about it.

Nobody knows the true cost of the EU because all of the estimates are just estimates. If a website or politcal party claimed it was a third of that (or indeed Ben's post) then that wouldn't be gospel either.

Agree some do (& have gone) to extremes, (far right or far left) but I wouldn't call UKIP an extreme party.
Based on Thursdays vote they are more mainstream than Labour (with a higher share of the vote).
Agreed that no one knows the true cost of the EU, because Uk goverments of all parties never have the guts to commision a cost / benefit analysis.
However if you look at most best guess estimates they are cxonsiderably higher than UkIP's figure. The tax payers alliance reckon its 4 x that & some say its 8 x that. UKIP's estimate is right at the lower end of the scale.

I think we have to accept that people who voted for the BNP will have at least some sympathy with their views. I think it would be a massive mistake that they voted for them just to piss off the major parties without taking into account what they stand for. They could have voted for the greens or UKIP but they chose the BNP.

Interesting that UKIP are planning to stand in every seat in the next general election. Seems a bit stupid to me, the majority of the votes they get will come from people that would otherwise vote Tory - reducing the number of seats the main Euro sceptic party will get (Tories) and increasing the number of seats the main pro Euro party will get (Labour). It could result in Labour staying in power and hence no referendum even on Lisbon.

Though I guess Cameron could cut a deal to get them to drop out.

No-one officially knows due to the fact that the EU accounts haven't been signed off for over 12 years due to fraud, and dodgy accounting practices. All I know it costs a lot of money, some has put it at £7bn annually.

If you google "cost of EU membership" then most of the results quote figures between 55 & 65 billion

If google 9 handed midget you could get a image. Dont mean its real ;-)

im gonna check

and if you Google cost of voter stupidity you get 3,620,000 hits. What's your point?

couldnt find any 9 handed midgets.

Yes I heard that too & by & large agree with you. Having said that from UKIP's point of view they will only get what they want is they can get parliamnet to vote for UK independence. They could win every seat in the euro elections & it would make no difference what so ever.
 
They also reckoned that they were getting more votes from labour this time.

I agree with what you are saying , I would not be voting UKIP at a general election, as they stand no chance. I think a lot of voters will take the same line & that this is a major reason why the conservative vote wasn't higher in the Euro's

The problem with the conservatives & labour is that both parties have sections that are very pro europe as well as sections that are anti europe.

My point is that most estimates are considerably higher than the UKIP claim of 40 million a day (Which is £14 billion  a year). FB was trying to say that UKIP were using inflated figures, my point is that by most estimates that UKIP's figures are LOW)

I did not want to use one source, so suggest picking a few & taking the average as a "best guess"

Disapointing about the midgets yeovil isnt it.

When I searched it asked me whether I was trying to find 9 headed midgets. I decided that I was. Unfortunately I couldn't find any of them either. Why did it ask me if they weren't any? I find this very misleading.

I would complain.

I just can't see withdrawal from the EU as happening, ever. There is the possibility to re-negotiate the relationship and to prevent further power being transferred, such as blocking the Lisbon treaty. If UKIP do stand in the next general election it will backfire and as a result I reckon we will see some kind of deal being done between the Tories and UKIP. Though in the long term a federal EU is going to happen, but even the most pro EU countries don't want to go there at the moment.

I found the interview with the "YouTube" Tory MEP very interesting (can't remember his name, but his latest Dr Seuss rant was excellent). He made a good point about there needing to be a fundamental change in the democratic structure and processes within the UK, from a local council level, through regional and national level and ending with EU level. Things are a mess at the moment and need to be sorted out.

I try to keep up with politics but I haven't got a clue who my local councillors are, let alone exactly what it is that they do. They don't have a high enough profile, should be full time positions and should have a lot more power and responsibilities than they do at present.

I know my MP and what she does but there are major problems at national level government, primarily the ridiculous position they have managed to get in with devolved power. We need an English parliament to go with the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland assemblies and then a UK parliament on top of that. For me this is the biggest issue and the one that needs addressing first.

I don't know who my MEP's are and again, haven't got a clue what it is that they do. My biggest issue is that whilst I agree with proportional representation to a degree they have gone too far, as you can only vote for a party and not an individual. Some form of mixture is needed, directly elected individuals supported by national top ups.

Its funny that whilst we are so proud of democracy in the EU, its getting very close to totally imploding on itself. Having it happen in the middle of the worst recession in living history is not good, we have a PM who has lost the plot and control, backed by MP's who are only worried about saving their jobs, with an opposition that is split widely between different parties and groups. Worrying times ahead.

I couldn't find a Google complaints department, If I could I would.

Ask Jeeves

Have you heard about the latest EU directive to ban them? They'll have to chop off some fingers to comply which will cost the health service approximately £6.25 a day. It's an outrage!

Surely its best for decisions to be made on as local a level as possible? Whats the point of transferring power overseas? Oh lets let some people from other countries make decisions that affect us here. That'll be great won't it? Wheres the logic?

Some very good points there, particularly about the PR. In the main even with big changes in the share of vote the same MEP's were relected. PR the way it was done makes it very difficult to know who represents you. Even more concerning if & when a expenses scandal occurs unlike at Westminster the electorate can't oust an individual only a party.

It's so that if you go from one country to the next you should be able to expect the same level of standards and rights. Why is that such a bad thing? Also, the UK does not take up all of these laws anyway.

I am by no means pro-EU, I do recognise that there are tangible monetary savings to be made but these are often exaggerated. Do you think the EU is going to trade goods which don't meet EU regulations if we leave? The costs will still be incurred. I also get pissed off with the Daily Mail attitude some people have, oh no they're going to take away my right to remove my clothing, deficate in an alleyway, then walk home in my underwear. Fuck them all!

I found a feedback thing

I was conducting some important research into 9 handed midgets. When I searched this I was presented with the question 'Did you mean 9 headed midgets?' Considering the lack of 9 handed midgets available, I thought this would be an interesting diversion. However when I accepted your kind offer, There were still no images available to me. I find this very misleading. I feel that some multi-headed midgets should be available to view as soon as possible.

Many thanks
David M Russell

I agree but you can't transfer (or have) all decision making at a local or even national level. I don't think I've heard anyone against a single EU market / trade zone, this has to be legislated and regulated at an EU level or it just won't work. Plenty of other areas this applies to such as immigration (to the EU zone). There is also a place for levels above the EU, such as NATO and the UN.

Whilst I'm pro a federal EU, they have gone too far too quickly especially with the Lisbon treaty - which has been shot down all across the EU (though it looks like it will go through soon). The pro EU politicians really need to take a step back and let things calm down a bit and to allow the recently joined member states to be fully integrated - which will take a good few years.

But people who live in different places want to do things differently. Why do we need to have the same law all over Europe? Can't people cope with the fact people live differently in different places? Why does everything have to be all uniform?

It doesn't. But there are certain things that all people should have such as democracy, human rights, health care and so on - the EU enforces those things on all countries. Most of the eastern European countries have had to make major changes in these areas before they were (or will be) allowed in. In exchange they get support, especially financial, access to the EU market and other things. Don't forget that we'd most likely be providing financial aid to these countries anyway.

I just can't see how any human being can object to the EU on the above grounds.

It's a bit of a simplistic view though, isn't it?

All people should have democracy? Why? it's only one form of government, there are others you know.

Human Rights? What bench mark is used to gauge this? Different cultures have different views.

What you're actually advocating is the 'Westernisation' of the whole of Europe. If I came from an Eastern European Country I'd think you were a bit of a patronising twat.

The common market itself, which is what we voted for in the 70's is good in theory. Unfortunately in practise it involves trade barriers, the common agricultural policy & subsidies. This means that the poorer countries of the world are at a massive disadvantage when they want to trade with us, it adds £25 a week to the avaerage families food costs, & wastes billions.
This has now evolved into political union which the majority of europeans do not want. The french want to stay french, the germans german etc etc etc. Most of the legislation is put together & approved by face less, unelected euro crats who if faced with an obstacle (such as a democratic vote) merely ignore it, change a few words & put it through the back door. The attitude is we know better than you peasants. The european paliamnet is just a talking shop with very little actual power
I see europe as a gravy train run by the political elite, (jobs for the boys). It is corrupt, unaccountable & undemocratic. I see very little about it that deserves any support.

Yeah its like the US invading Iraq to enforce freedom. Except without all the war so it is pretty different. But anyway I don't think the people of Eastern Europe need the EU to be like a knight in shining armour to come in and save them. I think they can improve their living conditions themselves. So long as people trade with them and they will anyway.

I'd rather have free trade with other (poorer), countries & give them a chance on a level playing field. It annoys me that we give aid on the one hand that may or may not reach the people, whilst on the other hand we impose tariffs on their trade with us.

A poor choice of words on my part. The EU doesn't enforce any of that on anyone, there are rules and regulations if countries want to join but its up to them whether they do or not and a lot of eastern European countries have chosen to. Lets not forget either that most of those countries are coming from a form of communism / socialism where they had little to no say in how their countries were run and a pretty shit quality of life.

Technically democracy isn't a form of government, it's about the rights and freedoms citizens have. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, which is a form of democratic government.

Do the EU laws really change our national identity and shape the way we live? I think most of it is to bring standards of living up to speed in other countries. In my opinion (it is just that) it's better than bunging a load of aid to them and letting them get on with it. But that's really a different matter, from a UK perspective I have personally not come across any EU law which has directly affected me in an adverse way (to my knowledge).

There seems to be a lot of EU Health & Safety bashing done by the media and the public but a large proportion is just myth. The 'AbsurdEU' blog which the UKIP site links to is an example, the majority of that blog is utter bollocks.

I think the major issue with the EU is the cost factor, which is yet to be established. UKIP's conservative estimate is simply the amount we pay to the EU each year, the net cost to the UK is a third of that figure. That could still be too high when you consider what is actually done by the EU.

The irony for me is that the public seems to be bashing British Parliament and Brussels in equal measure, yet the alternative to Brussels is completely our Parliament and relying it to enforce sensible measures in a competent way. I honestly think there would be enough to moan about in both scenarios and the whole EU debate is a bit of a storm in a teacup when you consider the bigger picture.

The irony for me is the UK, or if it Britain, or Great Britain, or whatever it is. We have a number of countries, each with specific needs and wants, with different cultures, different values and different languages (sort of) who are all ruled primarily from a central and shared parliament.

What difference is there between the UK and the EU other than size?

Daniel Hannan, Dr Seuss'ing Gordon Brown's ass....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97BoyMnw30A

I'd love to see Cameron give Hannon a safe Tory MP seat so he can get him in the shadow cabinet. It would be a laugh and it would go down well with all the Euro sceptics.

Not much - the English pay for both.

If you voted in favour back then, then you voted for membership of an organisation that at it's heart was clearly stated to be seeking social and economic union amongst it's member states.  the principal being that some of the problems of "unfair" distribution of wealth and social cohesion that exist in the world can be solved at a higher level.  So it was always supposed to be about the rich countries being able to help the poor and have a layer of legislation around social justice (Human Rights - often used by people in the UK).  The only change in policy I can detect is a desire to move into Defence Policy.

Entierly different debate to whether it's been well run or not, but in fairness, complaining about the Eu trying to get laws passed, taking money in and spending it elsewhere, is odd considering it is waht it was set up for.  The fact our Politicians sold it as something it patently was never supposed to be, says more about our Politicians that European ones.

There's plenty to debate about how they've come up with the laws and how the policies have worked, or not.  That's very different though. It's a simple IN and try to influence, or OUT because you fundamentaly disagree with the principal.

It says more about how they felt the true meaning of membership would have gone down with the populace. If its so good then why not come out with it instead of subterfuge.

Agreed.  I'm pretty Pro European but the whole concept was sold the wrong way, which means it will never equal what people thought it would.  As people are pretty negative towards politics anyway, that means it will probably always be looked upon negatively by the UK population, at least for another generation or so.  It's also not helped that they haven't moved to the Parliament taking control of the legislative side of things, which is where it should naturally go.

The worry for Europe is not whether we like it or not, but more whether the same mistake is being replicated in Eastern Europe.  Sure, they'll get a number of years of benefits, but how will they react once a more level playing field is reached and the subsidies begin to recede?  have they informed people in these countries that it's not an everlasting prop up but a way of bringing them to a level.

tee hee!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091605.stm

A Bad Egg:

[url width=300 height=214]http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z84/axs0/badegg.jpg[/url]

The anti-BNP campaign didn't do themselves any favours by doing that, they just played in to the hands of the BNP. They claimed they were "defending democracy", how can that be the case when they prevented a democratically elected politician from giving a press conference? I'm not defending the BNP, I felt sick when Griffin gave his speech after being elected. But this is not the way to fight them, you're just giving them even more ammunition.

Its the same as happens in the Middle East. Western governments enforce or encourage democratic elections, then when they don't agree with the result they refuse to deal with them, ie Hamas. It just makes a mockery of democracy.

i know, but i'd love to throw things at griffin

Clearly this whole egg-throwing is a disgrace and is to be roundly condemned. If they were close enough for eggs, they were close enough to throw bricks at the gobshite.

its no yoke paul,personally its eggsactly what he deserves.

I can't help but smile, well done to the bakers dozens who threw the eggs.

if they are caught, they will be up before the beak.

Jesus...

Mex has turned into Neville.

and Hurrah for the egg throwers.

Changing the subject here but I've just seen that Brown hopes to change the election voting system. Talk about desperate times for him.

If he were to give us an extra bank holiday in 2010 then I would deffo vote for him :)

Ahhh but under his new genius system you get a first, second and third choice of vote. How genius is that? Total bollocks and clear desperation. Hope it gets laughed at.

That sounds quite a good idea for those of us worried we might make a cock of the first two goes - not sure which of the main parties to vote for? Vote for all three* of them :)


*That's the Tories, Lib Dems and UKIP, obviously

Will that mean more papers for Talk Talk to spoil and ironically waste trees in the process?

Yes but there would be a referendum before anything radical takes place - a pity he wasn't so open abuot the Lisbon Treaty or whatever its latest name is.
He's fucked no matter what unless Talk Talks cunning plan of spoiling papers takes off big style.   

The egg story made my day.  Play in to the BNP's hands?  I don't think so.  Seeing them scurrying back in to their cars was a beautiful sight to behold.

Loved it so much, I damn near went and changed my avatar.

It gave them publicity and keeps them on the front pages. I do find the "treat the BNP like shit" attitude to be quite amusing as its no better than the BNP attitiude to ethnics.

We should have proportional representation in this country and be done with FPTP.

There's a bit of difference between chucking a few eggs and (say) firebombing mosques, to choose just one example of local relevance

Completely disagree.  Nick Griffin hates black people because they are black.  I hate Nick Griffin because he's a cunt.

Treating someone like shit because they are black is completely unacceptable.
Treating someone like shit because they are a cunt is completely acceptable, and should be encouraged at every opportunity.

The point I was trying to make ( badly ) is that the attitiude to the BNP appears to be a stereotypical shaven headed nutter which is no better than the BNP thinking all blacks are lazy fuckers. They are more dangerous now than ever as they are no longer the exclusive preserve of Cmobat 18 etc.  

I think your original point that it keeps them on the front pages (and jonny's that it allows them to portray themselves as victims) was a reasonable one, but I'd disagree with the "stereotyping as shaven-headed thugs" stuff. I don't care how they look, it's the fact they're Nazis I have a problem with. And I think that's UAF's problem with them as well.

Apparently Griffin got egged in Manchester yesterday as well - much of more this and he's going to end the week like some kind of Fourth Reich souffle

The big problem is that Nick Griffin appears to have gone legit, at least he appears to be staying on the right side of the law. So to fight him you have to keep it legal as well, if you don't you are lowering yourself to his level and giving him even more ammunition.

His press conference wouldn't have got more than a passing mention, but due to the attack it has been all over the news and given him even more air time. To make it even worse he then chooses his words carefully and its difficult to argue against them...."It's a sad day for British democracy", "an organised mob that's backed by all three main parties to stop us getting our message across to the public". Plus he will have just won some more supporters.

Anyone who thinks he was at all bothered by having eggs thrown at him is sadly mistaken, he's had far worse things done to him and brushed them off. He will be sat at home tonight laughing his bollocks off at them playing right in to his hands.

Hmm, I see your point, but still not convinced you just sit back and give them a free run. And the idea of Griffin and Brons going legit is fucking laughable

I think the best way to ruin Griffin is to let the man speak and argue against him with a bit of wit and brains.  He can't cope with that - people will soon see him and his party for the racist, ignorant bunch that they are.

Dimbleby asked him why he didn't let non whites in and he said that it was because currently they can stop themselves getting fired using the Race Relations Act.

Surely not? The irony would cause the world to implode.

Surely if they're talking bollocks then the best thing you can do is let them talk. In fact, give him a platform. Everyone knows he will twist things to his advantage like he has this attack. Don't give him the chance to exploit the publicity. Today's egg attack on him was pathetic and has backfired.

The thing is though, Griffin and the rest of the BNP aren't the problem - so yes, we should just sit back and give them a free run. What we should be doing is looking at the reasons why people voted for them - that is the problem that needs to be resolved. I don't believe for one moment that its because all those people are racist, they have genuine issues that they are pissed over and voting for the BNP was the way they chose to air them.

Classic example of Griffin talking but not knowing anything.  Of course people cannot prevent themselves being sacked using their skin colour.  The act protects people from being sacked on the basis of their skin colour.  To sack someone because they are black would be a violation of the Race Relations Act.  To sack someone black for incompetence would, of course, not be illegal in any way.

The man is simply an idiot.

I heard that and didn't understand it. I guess he's trying to argue that whilst the BNP is an all white party, sacking someone for being a member discriminates against white people as only a white person can be sacked for it. It seems a new argument as I hadn't heard of it before, let alone it being successful.

I did hear him giving another explanation for the white only rule - that there were various other groups and organisations that legally limit their membership to people of a certain ethnicity, so why can't they? He also said that as soon as other groups removed the limitations on membership, they would do the same.

The thing is it's all very well arguing that they should be exposed by the likes of Dimbleby or the excellent savaging he got from John Humphries on Radio 4 the other day, but the people who vote for them do not, by and large, watch or listen to these programs. I got excoriated on here for "banging on" about the BNP being Nazis by people who said I shouldn't get so het up about it because they were going nowhere. So we should all sit back and stop worrying about it. And hey-ho, now we as a nation are sending two Nazis to represent us in Europe. When exactly do we start worrying about it then? When they have two MPs? Three, thirty-three?

Jonny's (and chalkie in a previous thread) is right that the root causes are in the abandonment of the white working class by all parties, but especially New Labour, but that does not mean that the BNP do not represent a significant evil in their own right. They should be stopped and opposed at every opportunity and by every means available

Personally, I thought the egging incident made Griffin look ridiculous.  Having him hounded on camera in that way sets him apart from the mainstream and makes him look like an object of ridicule and a freak.  I sincerely doubt that there is an army new supporters out there now thinking 'Poor Mr Griffin...treated so shoddily by that mob...and doesn't he look so lovely in his suit...so plausible...my sister can marry him if she wants...such a nice man.'

I was surprised to see none of this made the BBC News at Ten.  So someone somewhere had obviously wanted to deny him the publicity others have mentioned above.

No he was trying to gliss the fact that the BNP is a racist party by clouding the issue with nonsense

I agree with almost everything you've said here.  My big problem with the incident is it puts a dent in the reputation of the anti-BNP campaign.  It seems a bit like saying we can't beat you with logical argument (which we can.  Easily.) so we will resort to egg throwing.

I'm not arguing at all that the BNP voice should be legitimated in mainstream politics.  It should be heard and dismissed as the digusting, ignorant tripe that it is.

I think you make a great point though - the problem is not enough people in this country take an interest in politics anymore.  If your only point of reference is The Sun, you are dangerously close to falling in to the clutches of the likes of the BNP.  Voter apathy is a real danger.

I was just around the corner, when it happened today. Seen many protesters, but missed the egg throwing. boo.

Not sure I put it like that but I'd pretty much agree as regards the cause of the BNP support. Except the abandonment is of the white "native" class as a whole and primarily the males, I'm male / white / English and often feel I'm the one in the minority nowadays (not enough to vote BNP though). Its not just Labour either, its all of the major parties and has been going on for years.

But as I said before, stopping the BNP is not the solution. Resolving the underlying causes is the solution and then the BNP will disappear off the radar again.

Exactly, but with reasoning not eggs. The fact the 3 main parties were behind this discredits them. They've allowed the BNP to be in this position and now they resort to childish tricks to beat them. No wonder the BNP are gaining popularity when our 3 main parties play into their hands.
As for being a legitimate party then its better in the open than driving it underground.

Erm, they weren't. That was just what Griffin said to add to his martyr complex, the demo was organised by UAF, not the Tories, Lib Dems and UKIP

I doubt they had anything to do with it. But they have admitted to having meetings and co-ordinating plans of action against the BNP, especially in an attempt to prevent them from winning any MEP seats. Which I reckon was a pretty stupid thing to do (or to admit to) as again it just gives the BNP more ammunition.

i was going to do that, i saved a picture onto my desktop and called it "scum"

on a slightly related note to all this eggy goodness- i flicked through the sun whilst bored (yes that bored) at lunch and noted that they were not aligning themselves with the BNP, despite hating immigrants. what a clever change of stance

and they ran a piece of how peter andre felt a "shadow of a man" after katie price, does that sound like something you'd hear come from his lips? the answer is only just, but he'd be reading a queue card

I don't think the BNP did do particularly well out of it. The egg throwers didn't do them selves any favours but nor did Griffins "Minders" who were filmed knocking a woman over in the rush to save their "Leader".
People who voted BNP have given many different reasons, & whilst some are undoubtably racist more are to do with no other party appealing to them. (as in Germany in the 30's).
I think that the problem is exacerbated by new labour in particular refusing even to debate the issue of immigration let alone do anything to controll it. Most EU countries opted out of initially allowing uncontrolled migration tob work from the old Eastern Bloc, we didn't.
Also is the complete lack of controll of illegal immigration & failed asylum seekers from places outside of the EU. (eg when they are found they are asked nicely to report to an office rather than being deported.)
The other thing behind some of the votes is the policy of "positive" discrimination in some areas (eg some police forces) where preference is given to people based on the colour of their skin or sex.
My belief is that if the main parties were to not be scared of & start discussing this properly & come up withy some reasonable sensible policies, then the BNP would actually die & just go back to being a party of nazi thugs.
Problem is that if a party does start talking about the issues then the PC brigade then start calling THEM facists.

By saying anyone who votes Bnp is racist plays into the Bnp's hands.Deluded thick as shit etc yes but to say everyone is racist if they vote is just stupid.

Erm, I don't think anyone here has said all BNP voters are racist have they? The party's racist, its leaders are racists, and some of their voters are undeniably racist, but I don't think anyone's said "anyone who votes BNP is racist". Although, it would be legitimate to ask such people if they're not racists, why they're voting for a party that is

those far left lobbing loonies are as bad as the bnp.

And again: chucking eggs < burning mosques

Well without a doubt Stalin was as bad as Hitler. The Chinese & North Korean regimes are both repressive as is Zimbabwee & Amin's Uganda.
I guess that should the BNP ever come to Power this country would resemble the two African examples mentioned.
They all have one thing in common though. A lack of free & fair elections & a political elite who dictate to the masses. (bit like europe some would say).
They also all came to power as a result of a reaction to the status quo. ie people were disillusioned with the situation & allowed it to happen. There was no mederate alternative, so the extremists won through.
I'm convinced that in the case of the BNP the answer is for the main political parties to address the issues (They have been reluctant to do so for fear of being branded racist by the PC brigade).
Most who voted for the BNP would not do so (I'm sure) if for example one party adopted a policy of controlled imigration like Australia.
I also wonder was Enoch Powell wrong to talk about the subject in the 60's ? He has been vilified ever since for stating what he saw as the truth. Was he right or wrong? (I don't know the full text so can't make up my mind on that)
Getting back to the BNP the answer is definitely NOT to ban them. By all means jail them if they break the law, but a ban would only give them a stange form of Kudos, as with the Muslim extremists.  After all this country went to war with Hitler partly to defend the right of free speech.

Exactly. What I've said on here before and what is pissing me off about this is how everyone seems to be seeing all these BNP votes as just a protest vote against the main parties, as if the people who voted for them don't agree with anything the BNP stands for! I'd suggest this is rubbish and rightly or wrongly almost all these voters have at the least a hardline view on immigration!

Why isn't anybody acknowledging this or do they just not want to admit it?

I'm not saying its right but its the truth and we should face up to it!

I don't see why a hardline view on immigration has any bearing on whether someone is a racist.

I don't hate anyone because of their ethnicity or colour, but I do believe that the immigration laws in this country need looking at.

Again, I don't think anyone's actually suggested banning them have they?

I didn't say in my post it was racist. I said what we shouldn't ignore is most of these BNP voters have at the least a hardline view on immigration.

I think this is being ignored.

What needs to be done is to address the root causes of of why anyone would vote for an extreme political party (Right or Left).

When I lived in Hayes, a few years ago, many local residents were overtly racist due in part to the number of immigrants flooding into the area and the apparent priority they were given with regard to housing and benefits.

Now, the above view may be completely wrong, but that's what these people believed. It's very easy to condemn anyone who has views which can be seen to be racist when the issues don't directly affect you.

Paul erm i was talking about people in general not this thread.

Wot in Hillingdon? I lived there years ago went to school there as well ? wasn't a pleasant area in the 80s!

Wasn't a pleasant area in the 90's either! I lived on the Uxbridge Rd.

That is a perfect example of the problems that resulted in the BNP getting votes.

I honestly believe we are one of the least racist nations in the world, and we actively encourage people from other countries, cultures, ethnicity's to live here and welcome them and their differences with open arms as they help to expand our culture.

The problem is that some of those people we welcome, take the piss out of us and we compound it by having a government that actively encourages them to take the piss. Such as the small minority of Muslim extremists who despise and campaign against our democracy and freedoms, then use those very rights to their own advantage.

I've had enough of it, but whilst I wouldn't ever vote BNP I can see the reasons why some people chose to.

you cosmopolitan high lifer you

FWIW I think you are spot on with what you are saying. Take away the obvious mikey takes of the system/ non system, & you will deprive the BNP of most of it's votes.

Voting for the BNP is the easy, lazy and dangerous option to voice discontent for our immigration policies and involvement in Europe. It's a pity our politicians (including MEP's before the recent election) are not lobbied either in person or written to, generally harangued and given plenty of shit so they realise the opinion of the majority and therefore represent them appropriately instead of doing bugger all. They should be earning their money! This goes for local councillors too. Voting for the extreme is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut IMO.

Having said that Nick Griffiths is an elected MEP and was indeed lobbied with an egg or two so I guess some people don't express their opinions just at election time.

I got into quite a heated discussion about this in the pub last night.

Some people that I was drinking with where defending the BNP's policies even reading some from the newspaper. The think is that they just did not agree that the BNP was a racist party, rather that they where just taking a sensible approach to immigration to protect the interests of British citizens.

How fucking convenient for Griffin and the BNP that there is an immigration problem in the UK, all they have to do is drop the term "Non-whites" and replace it with "foreign labour" or whatever and they are no longer a bunch of racist fascists but the best thing since sliced bread (brown or white).

people define the word  'racist' differently.

Racists define the word 'racist' differently.

true,but not only racists.

And also to defeat fascism.  I do not wish the deaths of all those who fought fascism to be in vain.  Having said that the BNP vote actually fell (may have been mentioned elsewhere)...

You may like to point out:

1) The BNP's stated aims and objectives, their core political principles, are explicitly racist.
2) Their constitution, which bars non-whites (and even some whites e.g Poles, Slavs etc) from membership, is explicitly racist
3) Their manifesto at the last general election promised "voluntary" repatriation for non-whites (although how "voluntary" that would be in practice is entirely another matter) and for those non-whites who chose to remain, they would no longer be defined as British and so would be stripped of their citizenship. Griffin is still claiming non-whites cannot be called British.
4) Their leaders both at national and regional level are racists -
Griffin has a criminal conviction for inciting race hatred from his time editing "The Rune" a viciously anti-Jewish Nazi magazine;
Brons (their other MEP) started out in a group called "The National Socialist Movement" before moving onto become leader of the NF at its most virulently racist period;
their "ideological officer", Arthur Kemp, is a South African admirer of the AWB (the neo-Nazi Afrikaner terrorist organisation), reportedly linked to apartheid-era SA intelligence and the assassination of ANC activist Chris Hani
The guy who hosts their website and founded and ran the Hereford branch of the BNP, Lambertus Nieuwhof, is another South African who was convicted in South Africa for an AWB terrorist attack in which he and others tried to blow up a church school full of (black) kids. Only their incompetence prevented a massacre as the 25kg bomb failed to go off. Seems it's not all foreign criminals the BNP have a problem with - just non-white ones

I could go on (and frequently have done)

In short, the BNP was founded by and is still run by vicious, violent racists, many of them with criminal convictions for racist violence, hooliganism, terrorism, drugs offences etc.

So I'd ask your friends, if this motley crew don't sound like racists, who the fuck actually do they think would qualify as racists? It's like saying Hitler just took a bit of a strong line on that whole Jewish thing

What about all the other organisations throughout the UK which are specifically targeted at groups based on ethnicity, skin colour or nationality? Whilst some may not preclude others from joining, they all specifically promote that group over and above others. So surely that must mean they are all racist as well?

No. There's a world of difference between special interest groups, formed to promote the interests of a particular section of society and specifically excluding people from joining on the basis of their race/ethnicity. Combine it with the frequent "non-whites are not British" comments from Griffin, Brons etc even over the past few days, the manifesto pledge to strip non-whites of citizenship and you don't have to be a genius to see that a BNP-led Britain may just be a teensy weensy bit racist

Or what about the Girl Guides?  This virulently anti-bloke organisation would exclude me from joining because

(a) I'm in my 30s (ageist); and
(b) I'm male.

It's a disgrace.  They should be shut down immediately.

You can pick holes in any argument by taking it to its logical (and often completely impractical) conclusion.  But apply a little common sense, and it's clear that comparing the BNP to your local West Indian Community Association is a bit daft.  However, you could construct an argument to prove that both were 'racist' if, for what ever reason, you really wanted to.

The North East remained a Labour stronghold but suffered a dip in votes.

I voted for the Jury Team who received the least amount of votes in the region, 2904.

The BNP got a worrying 52700 votes.

Someone told me "pfft, the people are getting to worked up, the BNP only got 2 seats" - isn't this the problem? The fact that they got two seats?

I'm the first to admit that I'm not the greatest political mind, but why has the Lib Dems apparently suffered? They appear sound and were on the up but people seem to have jumped onto Cons or UKIP.

What about them?

Are we now supposed to have a discussion about how racist those groups are whilst forgetting the conversation about how racist the BNP are. It's a typical tactic from such a fascist organisation to direct attention from themselves to the failings of others, and in this instance these other groups just happen to be the very kind of group that the BNP would like to see eliminated, how convenient.

And of course, if those groups are racist and it's OK then it must be OK for the BNP top be racist. Is that how it works?

All 3 established parties lost votes, including the Tories (their share of the vote went up but they didn't make massive gains in terms of number of votes) - not a great night for any of them. Some of that vote turned to UKIP, minor parties etc but mostly people just didn't turn out at all, a reflection of the disgust many people feel with all politicians right now

Cheers Paul.

(I wouldn't rely on that btw, but that's how I understand it anyway). And I just realised I didn't really answer your question re Lib Dems - as I understand it, their vote held up OK (or at least fell roughly in line with everyone else's) as did their share of the vote, but they lost out on some seats because the Tories and UKIP increased their share of the vote while the Lib Dems stood still in those seats. So they didn't do badly per se, just other swings hit them (and probably some roundabouts too)

I'm talking specifically about their membership policy, nothing else, just the whites only rule.

If its ok to form a group to promote the interests of a particular section of society, what exactly are the BNP doing wrong? Why is it ok to exclude white's but not to exclude non-white's?

It might seem like a stupid argument to you, but to a lot of people it isn't - especially the people that voted for the BNP. Just saying the argument doesn't have any basis isn't going to cut it with those people. Change the law to say that no organisation can limit membership based on ethnicity, enforce it and the problem is solved.

One down, then you move on to their next argument, whatever that is. This is the only way to tackle the BNP and wipe their vote out. Saying their arguments are stupid and that they're racist is just counter productive.

The BNP themselves don't even attempt to say that their membership policy is OK. Instead they just skip it by drawing attention to other groups that have a similar policy.

Just because others do it doesn't make it OK does it?

There is also another very simple way to reduce the % of the votes that go to the BNP - get more people to vote.

Someone who votes for the BNP is more likely to walk down to the polling station and vote than someone who votes for one of the main parties. This is a fact and the switch from postal to polling station was the direct cause of the BNP getting one of their MEP seats, if not both of them.

We need to get more people voting anyway, I'd go as far as changing the law to say you have to vote (or some kind of reward for voting, such as £10 off your council tax - just bump up council tax to cover it, so its more a case of not voting costing you £10). At minimum we should have postal and internet voting.

You've missed the point - the special interest groups I assume you were referring to such as, say, the Black Police Offciers Association which is Griffin's favourite and where I presume you picked this facile argument up from do NOT exclude whites. They are a special interest group to promote the interests of Black Police Officers but they do not exclude white officers from joining.

Really, though, you're dancing around with chop logic here - as others have pointed out it's immaterial whether groups like the BPOA (and I'm not defending them by the way) are racist or not. The argument is whether the BNP are racist. Which they are. Or are you seriously trying to argue that the BNP aren't racist?

You're absolutely right about this at least - the reason the BNP got elected in both county and Euro elections was because their vote largely held up (it did fall numerically) whereas the main parties' votes, especially Labour's, collapsed. So they increased their share of the vote which is why they slipped over the threshold to get elected

Is it just coincidence that jonny appeared at around the same time as Ironside's "departure"?

I'm not defending the BNP and I'm not trying to argue that they aren't racist. Deep down the BNP (I'm talking about the party, not the people that voted for them) are racist, but the way they are talking and promoting themselves at present isn't racist - that is what people are voting for and that is the problem. Its no good using the "they're racist" argument when they're not acting racist - a lot of people won't listen.

Drivel. If they are (as they are) a racist party with racist beliefs they would enact if they were ever in a position to do so, but are currently hiding it, then people should be aware of what they're voting for. Just because they've got a bit better at hiding the racists, the criminals and the terrorists, we should ignore that? Or maybe tell people who might be tempted to vote for them what they're actually voting for?

My take on it is that these were European elections. Lib Dems are seen as very pro euro federalist, whereas Tory s are seen as being less so, & UKIP wants out.
It may well be that a lot of Tory voters voted UKIP, & a lot of those concerned about the likes of the Lisbon Treaty voted Tory/UKIP not labour/ Lib Dem.

Which highlights one of the (major) problems with PR. 

I don't want to be forced to vote. ::) Anyway if you did that or offered financial incentives then surely some people would vote without giving much thought to it at all and surely that isn't what you want, loads of people making a random choice because they're forced to or to get a tenner?

Whilst I personally don't vote I think proportional representation is blatantly the most democratic voting system.

If there are 100 seats available and a party gets 10% of the votes cast then they get 10 seats and the is perfectly in proportion to the support they got from those who voted.

In first past the post a party could get 5% or more of the vote or more and not get 1 seat. And the winning party can have a big majority of the seats which is an exaggeration of their support compared with their percentage of the vote.

Either you want the number of seats to properly reflect the votes cast or you don't. You can't complain about PR letting in fringe partys and claim to believe in democracy. They got 2 seats because that reflects their percentage of the vote. I'm not saying I like it but if you knock PR because of this you're basically saying you don't think the outcome of an election should truly reflect the amount of votes each party got... and that isn't what supposed to be about is it?


To reiterate, if you're in favour of a democratically elected government I don't see how you can't prefer PR to first past the post.

Unless of course you're honest enough to say its not about democracy its about you being a Tory or Labour supporter and just wanting your party to form a big majority and all the people who voted for those crazy little partys you don't give a shit about can fuck off.

Sir Winston said that.

The BNP getting in just highlights one of the weaknesses of democracy. And it doesn't necessarily matter whic form of voting it is, it'll never be perfect.

I don't think that anybody is blaming the system itself, rather people just ain't happy that BNP have any kind of power whatsoever.

Ardiles, that is the best summing up of the argument I have been trying to make to a lot of people for a long time.  I could not agree more.

I really am not trying to pick a fight here, but your first sentence betrays you here.  I honestly can't understand why someone would relinquish the one chance they have every few years to actually make a difference in the politics of their country.  I think voting really is more than a right, its a responsibility.

Since the BNP started getting a sizeable vote in elections the majority of people have been calling them racist and telling everyone not to vote for them. Where has that got us? Nowhere, except for two of them now being MEP's. We need to look at the reasons people voted for the BNP, if they are reasonable and we can do something to address them then we should. That has a far better chance of wiping out their vote in future elections.

Did anyone else have a look at the leaflets that the parties out through our doors for the Euro elections? The Labour and Tory ones were pretty much just slagging each other off - "Brown is a twat" vs "Cameron is a twat". The BNP leaflet just kept to the point - "no to immigration and unemployment", "no to EU rule", "British jobs for British workers" and so on.

Which I think highlights another reason people are sick of the main parties, especially Labour and the Tories, and voted for someone else. They are more interested in having a pissing match, than actually debating policies and issues and a lot of people have had enough of it.

Your criticisms of Labour/Tories are perfectly valid. And I don't disagree that there are underlying dissatisfactions that are being ignored by the main parties that lead people to turn to extremes - I've already said elsewhere in this thread that the main parties have in large part abandoned the white working class and it is this that the BNP has capitalised on.

However, it does not alter the fact that the BNP are a racist fascist party and that is the very core of why they are so repellent. You're right that simply calling them racists is pointless - however, as I and many others have repeatedly demonstrated it's not just name-calling, there is ample evidence that the party, its leaders and core activists are fundamentally racist and fascist. if, as you say (and I agree), many of the people who voted BNP did so because they somehow managed to convince themselves that they're not voting for racists, then surely it's quite legitimate to challenge the BNP's efforts to dress themselves up as not being racist and so dissuade the "I'm not racist but I voted BNP" vote that if they're not actually racists, then perhaps they shouldn't be voting for Nazis. To duck that question is to ignore the whole point of why so many of us find the BNP and their ilk so uniquely repellent.

You see voting as the moment as individual I can be empowered by our system of government. I see as it as the moment I would give someone else my permission to take decisions that have an impact on my life on my behalf and to me that would be disempowering as once they were in they would do loads of things they never said they were going to do and I would feel like a dick for having given them my vote. (Also, if there isn't a party whose views coincide with my own why would I vote?)

Also if you think about it any right to vote is bullshit if there isn't a right not to vote.

Anyway Doore why are you saying "your first sentence betrays you" when the rest of my post would still be valid and make sense without it. I know you've got an axe to grind about non-voters and fair play, it's a point of view many people have, but my post was about proportional representation being better then first past the post. I can still think PR is better even though I don't vote.

I used to beleive in PR, but have now changed my mind.. The main reason is that it disenfranchises people. For example take the recent Euro elections. I now have 7 MEP's, so which one is representing me, & which one do I hold accountable ? All 7, or just pick one & say right I appoint you ? What if I voted for a party that didn't get an MEP (labour in the South West for example), In first past the post the MP is my reprersenative regardless of party how does it work with MEPs. What can I do if one of them is caught fiddling his expenses ? (The electorate voted for a party, which nominated the individuals )
The way it lets fringe parties has alraedy been covered.
Generally it also leads to poor weak government. (Could be seen as a good thing), but Italy is the oft quoted example.
I do understand that there are various forms of PR that address some of the issues, & there ARE problems with first past the post (not least that labour need a smaller % of the vote than any one else to get a majority. (Lib Dems suffer in particular with this). However I now believe that First Past the post is the best of the lot. It's main advantage being that it's simple.
(You could have a system of First past the post with a top up list elected by PR, but that would be very complicated too. (And parties could sneak unelectable individuals (cronies) on to that list, just as labour are doing with the current cabinet)

What I do favour is an elected second chamber, with no more or less power than the house of lords. That could be done by PR on a fixed term basis as they can be overidden using the parliament act.

Quite the opposite.  PR would abolish the concept of a 'safe seat'.  I live in a safe Tory seat and do not vote Tory, so my vote is effectively worthless; I might as well not have the right to vote at all.  That is being disenfranchised.

Under PR, I might not be able to point to the exact individual I have voted for - as you say.  That does not concern me in the slightest.  The parliament would be much more representative of the views of the electorate and that, to my mind, is a much greater consideration.

But under PR if you live in the South West & voted Labour, you are in the same boat. (No labour MEP returned).
IMHO, democracy is about the majority view. Not about representing the views of all & sundry. Northern Ireland is an example. A minority want to be part of Ireland, but the majority want to be part of GB. With first past the post, it will be very clear when & if the minority becaome the majority. With PR that is not the case as rarely would one group be in the majority due to the numerous fringe parties.
As I said, PR has it's merits, & I did favour it when I was younger & more idealistic, but have now concuded that FPtP is better, albeit as I say some form of PR top up could work.

I'm with Ardiles. Surely the greatest condsideration in considering the merits of a voting system is that if a certain amount of people voted a certain way the the result should reflect that.

Yes you might not have a specific MP assigned to you but so long as issues can still get raised thats the main thing and tbh how many people write to their MP anyway? I mean I know some do but if they can still raise issues somehow...

Ok, lets assume that the Euro elections were to be for the Westminster parliament.  Multiply the number elected for each party by 9 to see what would happen.
Cons would have 26 x 9 = 234 MP's, UKIP would have 117 as would labour 117, Liberals would get 99 BNP would be on 18 MP's !, & others would be 63. In reality the figures would be different because people may vote differently & more seats would be available.
The point is though that no one party could govern & a coalition would need to be formed. The most likely in this senario would be Cons & UKIP, (which I personally might like, but a lot wouldn't). The point is though that coalition governments rarely last or achieve anything.

You have to have local MP's so that they will fight for and support their locality. Otherwise who is going to? Whilst they belong to a specific party they are also representatives of the people they represent. Randomly allocating an MP to a locality won't work either, what would happen if a Tory MP was assigned to somewhere that was predominantly Labour?

I quite like the Alternative Vote system as it should result in the most suitable candidate being elected, a lot better than First Past The Post. I really don't like Proportional Representation as it generally leads to weak governments and a lot of minority parties getting elected. A mixture of the two could work, to a degree.

So you would sacrifice the result truly reflecting the votes in order to get the kind of government you consider desireable?

At the moment my constituency has a Tory MP. Regardless of how I vote he is there to represent me & every body else in the constituency. The needs of the constituency should come first too (I concede it doesn't always but that's not the fault of the voting system). In my area for example our MP is doing his best to stop or make the best of the closure of RAF lyneham.
If he does something wrong come the election we can kick him or her out. We can also if we wish elect an independent candidate who has campaigned on a local issue (martin Bell for example).

The problem with PR is that the candidates first loyalty is definitely to the party. If you aren't on the party list you have no chance (eg Katie bloody Hopkins, the Jury team etc). If you fiddle the expenses it only matters that the party keep faith in you as an individual, not so much the electorate.
As by definition it needs doing on a regional basis local issues will count for a lot less. With Fpp there is accountability. The Buck stops with the MP. If I want an issue raising with PR what do I do ? Write to all 7 regional MEP's & hope that one can be arsed to do something.  What happens if one MP does sod all, but another MP (of the same party) really does his best, but is lower down the party list. How do I reward the helpful MP with my vote whilst voting against the one who does F all ?

Well I'm a Tory, but I'd prefer a strong Labour government to a weak Tory coalition government any day of the week. Besides an Alternative Vote system would be representative, you might not get your first choice but you'd probably get your second or third plus your vote would still count. It would be a massive improvement on the current system - under 22% of all the eligible voters in the UK voted for Labour in the last general election.

But the Alternative Vote system is shit if you only want to give your support to one party.

I too would prefer a strong Labour Government to a weak Tory coalition. (But please no Brown in charge)
Under that system would there be empty seats representing those who don't vote ?

I guess it really comes down to how you want parliament made up; representative of the national vote (ie full proportional representation), or representative of the local vote (first past the post or alternative vote). I'd always go for the latter, with a move towards true representation - ie your MP represents you and isn't forced how to vote through their party whip. Politics has become far too geared towards parties and their leaders, MP's should have a far greater role in local politics.

But how many local decisions are made on a national level though? Surely it's councils who have most of the power on a local level?

Fucking hell and it's only June!!!

Roll on August 8th, when we can talk about something that's important and actually means something.

Herthab's missing his football bless 'im :)

I am too.

I think Phil, Jonny and Spy need to get a room. And you three do realise the elections were over a week ago, right? Just let it go.

I'm not.

Where's DV gone?

On holiday  :eek:

Tenner. Cough up.

Pretty sure nobody had the balls to take the bet, but seeing as Brown has proved himself even more stubborn that I'd expected and the entire cabinet collectively proved themselves to lack even the smallest backbone I'll cough up with a donation to the RAF or something. I'm glad I didn't pull a Gazza and bet my balls.

I think you'll find I took up the bet.

Pay up Nemo :)

I had a feeling he'd walk  :doh: but never committed to a time .

i would have taken your bet.missed it.
it would be stupid for brown to quit,or anyone to take over now.this is because labour will lose the next general election.who in their right mind would want to lead labour into defeat after oustingg the leader?
brown will lose, then resign, i reckon

I can't be arsed to wade through 24 pages of thread to check so I'll take your word for it. Cash or Cheque ;)

I did expect a leadership change and still think it would be a good idea- not because a new leader could win the next election- I'm not sure anyone couldn lead Labour to victory now but because they could stem the flow and reduce the scale of the beating- much like Michael Howard did for the Tories when they got rid of IDS in 200(4?) and save 30-40 MPs, maybe even push it towards a hung parliament if they did really well or the economy picked up (which is not as unlikely as it sounds- the Tories need a huge swing to get an overall majority)

The average MP looks out for their own career first and if they're in a marginal constituency (and lets face it, damn near anything is marginal for Labour now) a leader who might save their seat, if not the party majority, must be the priority.

But hey hum, I was wrong and now I'm going to have to watch David Cameron become Prime Minister with a landslide as well as pay out a tenner.

Page 8, just below the popcorn (he said, helpfully)