who are you voting in the euro elections?

[pauld]

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.

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

[BANGKOK RED]

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

[jonny72]

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?

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.

[pauld]

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?

[Phil_S]

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.

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.

[Phil_S]

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

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

[Spy]

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.

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?

[Spy]

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.

[BANGKOK RED]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

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.

[Doore]

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.

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.

[Doore]

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.

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.

[jonny72]

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?

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.

[pauld]

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.

[Spy]

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.

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.

[Phil_S]

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.