FAO BNP Voters (And BNP Haters)

[Shrenchel]

Griffin's in. ****s sakes.

[Shrenchel]

Got in with less votes than last time as well. fooking Labour and Tory cvnts. Well done on completely disenchanting half the fooking electorate.

[Daggers]

Gordon Brown and Labour carry the full shame of this.

Inept cunts.

[Ultra]

Such primary-school level analysis won't help get the scumbags out.

With a mass media ever willing to blame immigrants, trade unions, single parents and/or the unemployed for society's ills, the only mystery is why the BNP didn't break through sooner.

[Ford Super Sunday]

Is it just me, or does Nick Griffin look like the kind of man that would rape your child, then indoctrinate them with Nazi schpiel?

The man is a bumbling idiot, I saw him on his interviews with Sky and BBC last night, the **** kept referring to the British as 'indiginous' people, I mean jesus wept.

The man is a bellend, who will not receive about £70k a year to spout his crap with the Far-Right Dutch MEPs in parliament.

Why do MPs keep saying that the BNP vote is a protest vote? it's blollocks, they cannot, and dare not say that there are so many racist people in our society, utterly shameful.

I remember a country that kicked out all the whites and foreigners, Zimbabwe. I also know history remembers a country which blamed all it's problems on other people, Nazi Germany. People are not seeing what will happen if they are elected.

I said it once in another thread, if the BNP ever make serious inroads into the political system, or even, god forbid, get into power in a future election, I will be on the first plane out of here, and will settle abroad.

My political allegiance is slowly switching to the Jury Team party, probably the most sensible party out there at the moment, until the others clean themselves up,

[Ultra]

Is it just me, or does Nick Griffin look like the kind of man that would rape your child, then indoctrinate them with Nazi schpiel?

The man is a bumbling idiot, I saw him on his interviews with Sky and BBC last night, the **** kept referring to the British as 'indigenous' people, I mean jesus wept.

Well at least one poster on here will be happy to hear about that.

The BNP vote is as much to do with ignorance as it is to racism. Many of their supporters are happy to eat foreign food, travel abroad, watch football teams with black/overseas players and so on.

But the media (including the BBC) are happy to portray them as the voice of the white working class. And unless action is taken to destroy this myth (as it has been in Leicester), their support will continue to increase.

[Dr The Singh]

Is it just me, or does Nick Griffin look like the kind of man that would rape your child, then indoctrinate them with Nazi schpiel?

The man is a bumbling idiot, I saw him on his interviews with Sky and BBC last night, the **** kept referring to the British as 'indiginous' people, I mean jesus wept.

The man is a bellend, who will not receive about £70k a year to spout his crap with the Far-Right Dutch MEPs in parliament.

Why do MPs keep saying that the BNP vote is a protest vote? it's blollocks, they cannot, and dare not say that there are so many racist people in our society, utterly shameful.

I remember a country that kicked out all the whites and foreigners, Zimbabwe. I also know history remembers a country which blamed all it's problems on other people, Nazi Germany. People are not seeing what will happen if they are elected.

I said it once in another thread, if the BNP ever make serious inroads into the political system, or even, god forbid, get into power in a future election, I will be on the first plane out of here, and will settle abroad.

My political allegiance is slowly switching to the Jury Team party, probably the most sensible party out there at the moment, until the others clean themselves up,

Problem is Ian, not all people are clued up like yourself, most people a reactonist who respond to the slightest of sensation which would give fixes. Due to circumstances ie recession etc, people are now thinking 'of there own' this isn't just the white community, even the multi culture range are picking at others, it's very easy to dump problems on someone else, and even easier to think that these problems can be solved by simple actions!!!

BNP policies could never work in the real world, the quicker people realise that the better. The protest vote is also one that get's me, bringing facists into power isn't protesting instead it's self destruction!!

Oddly enough my local BNP councillor\wannabe only live 10 doors away from my mum, which was a surprise!!

I'm just glad, that BNP haven't made serious in roads, they won in coalville by a few percent!!

[breadandcheese]

Such primary-school level analysis won't help get the scumbags out.

With a mass media ever willing to blame immigrants, trade unions, single parents and/or the unemployed for society's ills, the only mystery is why the BNP didn't break through sooner.

With all due respect, the main fault is Labour's and your refusal to see this does you or the party you believe in, no favours. The story of this election is the falling away of the Labour vote. This in itself is the only positive for Labour, in that their voters did not necessarily defect to other parties, they simply stayed away. The case in point is Griffin getting a seat, when he actually received less votes than last time. This is of course only a very small positive.

So why did the Labour vote drop away allowing the BNP to get in? Was it because of the mass media blaming immigrants, trade unions, single parents, etc? No.

The single reason is the performance of this government. It is a joke. Here is an example. Two weeks ago, in a typical Gordon Brown speech, he announced that he understood the public's anger at politicians and he was the man to fix this. He wanted to reform parliament, change the public's view of it as a self-serving and reform the house of lords. So let's see how that's working two weeks on.

1) He gives out peerages to Alan Sugar and Glennys Kinnock, in order to bring these unelected people into his cabinet. This is alongside the peerage he gave Peter Mandelson to bring this unelected person into his cabinet. Obviously his future views of house of lords reform is a bit different to mine if these are his actions.

2) Gordon's allies, in order to shore up his position as leader, try to dissuade rebel MPs by explaining that toppling Brown would mean an election in the autumn, where many of them would lose their seats. Thus his argument is one where MPs should think not of what their constituents want, but of themselves, their political security and how they can stay in Westminster for an extra half a year of wages + pension contributions. Again, Gordon's views on changing the culture of parliament to one of a less self-serving attitude is obviously different to mine.

The point in all this is how can Labour expect anyone to vote for them when they are intent solely on preserving their leadership for power's sake.

[Finnegan]

Such primary-school level analysis won't help get the scumbags out.

With a mass media ever willing to blame immigrants, trade unions, single parents and/or the unemployed for society's ills, the only mystery is why the BNP didn't break through sooner.

While I don't agree that Labour (and mainstream politics as a whole) are blameless, I don't disagree with this statement either.

The press (and people's unblinkered belief in what they read) doesn't help at all.

[Bellend Sebastian]

Well at least one poster on here will be happy to hear about that.

The BNP vote is as much to do with ignorance as it is to racism. Many of their supporters are happy to eat foreign food, travel abroad, watch football teams with black/overseas players and so on.

But the media (including the BBC) are happy to portray them as the voice of the white working class. And unless action is taken to destroy this myth (as it has been in Leicester), their support will continue to increase.

I agree with that to a large extent. How else could they get away with having symbols of a world war against the far right emblazoned on their campaign literature, the irony of which is presumably lost on their supporters. I've also spoken to people who have contemplated voting for the BNP (and may actually have done so) who know nothing about skinheads or the National Front, and even less about the struggles against the far right that took place in Europe throughout the 20th century

[Ultra]

With all due respect, the main fault is Labour's and your refusal to see this does you or the party you believe in, no favours. The story of this election is the falling away of the Labour vote. This in itself is the only positive for Labour, in that their voters did not necessarily defect to other parties, they simply stayed away. The case in point is Griffin getting a seat, when he actually received less votes than last time. This is of course only a very small positive.

Discontent with Labour is only part of the story. Why did people vote BNP rather than say, LibDem or Green, as a means of expressing their anger? The reason is because the BNP's analysis, flawed though it is, is largely endorsed by the media (and tabloids in particular) on a day-to-day basis. This makes it far easier for them to spread their message of despair and hate.

He gives out peerages to Alan Sugar and Glennys Kinnock, in order to bring these unelected people into his cabinet. This is alongside the peerage he gave Peter Mandelson to bring this unelected person into his cabinet. Obviously his future views of house of lords reform is a bit different to mine if these are his actions.

Neither Alan Sugar nor Glenys Kinnock will be members of the cabinet. Indeed, Sugar has said he won't even be part of the government.

However the use of patronage to promote them (as well as Mandelson previously) is anti-democratic and wrong. It doesn't mean that a Tory government would do any different, though. If you think Cameron will do anything to reform the House of Lords, you're sadly mistaken.

Gordon's allies, in order to shore up his position as leader, try to dissuade rebel MPs by explaining that toppling Brown would mean an election in the autumn, where many of them would lose their seats.

Some of the rebels, like Hazel Blears, would be re-elected even in a Tory landslide. So such a line of argument, assuming it was made (which I strongly doubt) would not hold water.

If Labour lost a vote of confidence this week, and a Tory government came to power in the election that followed, would a single extra job be created, or an extra house built? Would society suddenly become fairer and more tolerant? Of course not.

The government, like it or not, was elected on a mandate to serve for up to five years. It should use the remainder of that term in a positive way, and give reason to believe that the party can still change Britain for the better.

[Ultra]

I agree with that to a large extent. How else could they get away with having symbols of a world war against the far right emblazoned on their campaign literature, the irony of which is presumably lost on their supporters.

That wasn't the only lie they told.

Here's the truth about their main campaign leaflet.

I've also spoken to people who have contemplated voting for the BNP (and may actually have done so) who know nothing about skinheads or the National Front, and even less about the struggles against the far right that took place in Europe throughout the 20th century

As we've seen, there's a lot of political illiteracy in this country. That in itself is a serious indictment of 12 years of "New Labour" in office.

[Zingari]

That wasn't the only lie they told.

Here's the truth about their main campaign leaflet.

As we've seen, there's a lot of political illiteracy in this country. That in itself is a serious indictment of 12 years of "New Labour" in office.

logically , the majority must have been the same illiterates that voted them in after the tory years .

do voters only become "illiterate" when voting for parties and policies that you disagree with ?

it's not rocket science , accept it , the majority are voting BNP etc in protest and to voice fears rather than any alignment with their views .

it's a "sit up and take notice" shout from the back .

[Bellend Sebastian]

I'm just waiting for another non-ironic headline from one of our esteemed dailies along the lines of 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts'.

I'm struggling to see a Unity Mitford type character latching on to Nick Griffin though

[Ultra]

The BNP are campaigning on a platform of ethical (as well as ethnic) purity.

As the leaflet above shows, neither withstands much scrutiny. I trust their elected representatives will be held to account in due course.

I'll say again, there is NEVER an excuse for voting BNP. Don't ever pretend that there is or can ever be.

[Shrenchel]

Such primary-school level analysis won't help get the scumbags out.

With a mass media ever willing to blame immigrants, trade unions, single parents and/or the unemployed for society's ills, the only mystery is why the BNP didn't break through sooner.

No, he got in with less votes than last time meaning the mass media, his party propaganda and whatever else didn't actually encourage anymore people to vote for the BNP. It was the fact that people that previously turned out to vote for the main parties didn't and we all know why that is.

Did you watch the election coverage last night? Towards the end, every Labour MP they spoke to was very self-deprecating, saying we know the BNP getting in is our fault, we can't try and shift the blame. If those mongy twats can see that I don't know why you can't.

[C-man]

They've got a seat in Yorkshire.

It's shameful.

Andrew Brons is an ex-neo nazi and member of the National Front. Arrested, and later convicted, in Leeds City Centre for openly proclaiming, "Death to jews." He is now an MEP.

It's actually embarrassing.

[breadandcheese]

And this is the problem with the current labour party. Blinkered beyond belief.

Discontent with Labour is only part of the story. Why did people vote BNP rather than say, LibDem or Green, as a means of expressing their anger? The reason is because the BNP's analysis, flawed though it is, is largely endorsed by the media (and tabloids in particular) on a day-to-day basis. This makes it far easier for them to spread their message of despair and hate.

In the North West, Labour voters did not switch to the BNP. The BNP's vote was lower than 2005. Labour voters stayed away to express their anger.

Neither Alan Sugar nor Glenys Kinnock will be members of the cabinet. Indeed, Sugar has said he won't even be part of the government.

They will be unelected ministers, only able to serve in their position once they are given a peerage.

However the use of patronage to promote them (as well as Mandelson previously) is anti-democratic and wrong. It doesn't mean that a Tory government would do any different, though. If you think Cameron will do anything to reform the House of Lords, you're sadly mistaken.

I'm talking about actions and words. David Cameron has not spoken about reforming the house of lords. You can obviously see the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of Gordon Brown announcing that he is principled and believes the house of lords should be reformed, only to then dish out peerages like confetti in an attempt to shore up his leadership. In days gone by, labour supporters would be appalled. Today they stay silent.

Some of the rebels, like Hazel Blears, would be re-elected even in a Tory landslide. So such a line of argument, assuming it was made (which I strongly doubt) would not hold water.

This is one of your weakest arguments to date and to be honest, I'm disappointed that you would even consider it valid.

Yes, some Labour MPs and rebels would hold their constituency seats (I must say, as a Tory voter, I was impressed with James Purnell for having the courage of conviction and being prepared to sacrifice his career for his political beliefs), but the opinion polls, results in the european elections, all tell otherwise for a large proportion of labour MPs who will find themselves thrown out of parliament at the public's say-so. So the argument is valid and key.

This is of course assuming Mandelson did say “If we were to have a third leader in a single parliament it would mean irresistible pressure for a general election,” on the Andrew Marr show yesterday and it wasn't my, the nation's or the BBC's imagination that such comments were made to put pressure on members of the Labour party.

If Labour lost a vote of confidence this week, and a Tory government came to power in the election that followed, would a single extra job be created, or an extra house built? Would society suddenly become fairer and more tolerant? Of course not.

All pure conjecture, backed up by nothing. Let's look at some facts though. Has society become fairer and more tolerant under this Labour government? Well, we have our first BNP MEPs, so there goes tolerant. Fairness, oh yes, the gap between wealthiest and poorest has ballooned under Labour.

The government, like it or not, was elected on a mandate to serve for up to five years. It should use the remainder of that term in a positive way, and give reason to believe that the party can still change Britain for the better.

Your last point once again shows why Labour is in the mess it is. If Labour prolong the election, things will only get worse for the party. If the party's only reason for failing to get rid of Brown is to avoid an election, then they will show themselves to be self-serving, self-interested and only wanting power for power's sake. As a tory voter, even I know this is not the true message or nature of the Labour party, but it is what the party and government has become. The longer it goes on, the worse it becomes.

[Ultra]

Towards the end, every Labour MP they spoke to was very self-deprecating, saying we know the BNP getting in is our fault, we can't try and shift the blame. If those mongy twats can see that I don't know why you can't.

Would these be the same people who fiddled their expenses? Or voted for war in Iraq?

So why are you now arguing that their views are somehow infallible?

[Shrenchel]

There's a difference between their views being infallible and them finally being willing to take responsibility for something which is for a very large is their fault.

If this is how all local labour actvists acted when they 'went out to campaign to keep the BNP out', I'm not fooking suprised they got in.

[Ultra]

And this is the problem with the current labour party. Blinkered beyond belief.

As we'll see, this is hardly a balanced or impartial view.

In the North West, Labour voters did not switch to the BNP. The BNP's vote was lower than 2005. Labour voters stayed away to express their anger.

Voting BNP is a conscious act. What motivated their supporters to do so? I note that you completely fail to address that question.

They will be unelected ministers, only able to serve in their position once they are given a peerage.

I've said that patronage is not acceptable. But Brown is not the first to use the powers available to him, and I very much doubt he'll be the last.

David Cameron has not spoken about reforming the house of lords.

For good reason. His party would be outraged if he did. The Tories have had many chances to abolish this anachronism. They have not taken one of them. Could it be because they're the biggest party there?

You can obviously see the hypocrisy and deceitfulness of Gordon Brown announcing that he is principled and believes the house of lords should be reformed, only to then dish out peerages like confetti in an attempt to shore up his leadership. In days gone by, labour supporters would be appalled. Today they stay silent.

No they don't. If challenged they would unequivocally condemn in the terms that I have done.

This is one of your weakest arguments to date and to be honest, I'm disappointed that you would even consider it valid.

There are plenty of valid reasons why a Labour government with a comfortable majority in the House of Commons should see out its full term. One is that it should finish the work it was elected to do. Some may argue, with justification, that starting it might be a good idea.

Yes, some Labour MPs and rebels would hold their constituency seats (I must say, as a Tory voter, I was impressed with James Purnell for having the courage of conviction and being prepared to sacrifice his career for his political beliefs),

So now your true colours emerge.

Out of interest, could you have stated what Purnell's beliefs were before he enlisted Uncle Rupert's help in attacking his own party? He was happy enough to support Brown two years ago. Why doesn't he do so now?

but the opinion polls, results in the european elections, all tell otherwise for a large proportion of labour MPs who will find themselves thrown out of parliament at the public's say-so. So the argument is valid and key.

The same argument could have been made for an election in 1994. The prime minister of the time survived only with the help of minority parties. He continued until the end of his term.

[Ultra]

This is of course assuming Mandelson did say “If we were to have a third leader in a single parliament it would mean irresistible pressure for a general election,” on the Andrew Marr show yesterday and it wasn't my, the nation's or the BBC's imagination that such comments were made to put pressure on members of the Labour party.

I didn't see the show so I didn't see the context in which the statement was made. Mandelson has his own reasons to fear the demise of the prime minister who appointed him to office. On some occasions, as here, they actually do coincide with the views of party members.

All pure conjecture, backed up by nothing. Let's look at some facts though. Has society become fairer and more tolerant under this Labour government? Well, we have our first BNP MEPs, so there goes tolerant. Fairness, oh yes, the gap between wealthiest and poorest has ballooned under Labour.

The Tories have stated that they will cut taxes for the wealthy and freeze the minimum wage. That alone says plenty about where their priorities continue to lie.

Your last point once again shows why Labour is in the mess it is. If Labour prolong the election, things will only get worse for the party. If the party's only reason for failing to get rid of Brown is to avoid an election, then they will show themselves to be self-serving, self-interested and only wanting power for power's sake.

Criticisms which could never be applied to the Tories, of course..

[breadandcheese]

Voting BNP is a conscious act. What motivated their supporters to do so? I note that you completely fail to address that question.

I see you failed to address why Labour supporters actively decided not to vote. If they had, there would be no BNP MEP in the North-West and no debate on the issue. What motivated Labour supporters not to vote?

I've said that patronage is not acceptable. But Brown is not the first to use the powers available to him, and I very much doubt he'll be the last.

He is certainly the first to talk about reform, trust and his presbetyrian values and then two weeks later ignore them for his own end.

For good reason. His party would be outraged if he did. The Tories have had many chances to abolish this anachronism. They have not taken one of them. Could it be because they're the biggest party there?

Check your facts. Including hereditary peers, there are 214 Labour peers in the House of Lords. There are 196 Conservative peers.

No they don't. If challenged they would unequivocally condemn in the terms that I have done.

You've swept it under the carpet by complaining that David Cameron wouldn't do anything different and constantly trying to compare yourselves to the Conservatives. Principle should be able to stand on its own and shouldn't need comparison.

So now your true colours emerge.

I like the way your present this as a revelation when I've been quite honest from the start. It doesn't make my views of the Labour party any less valid. Indeed, I'd be interested to hear whether other labour supporters disagree with my critique of the Labour party and how it's disconnection from its voters allowed the BNP in.

Out of interest, could you have stated what Purnell's beliefs were before he enlisted Uncle Rupert's help in attacking his own party? He was happy enough to support Brown two years ago. Why doesn't he do so now?

Same could be asked of a number of labour party activists and MPs all who supported Brown previously, now who don't. The fact is, Purnell is a guy who is towards the front end of his political career and was prepared to put principle before career, and has been hit by a massive pay-cut to do so. There are very few politicians like that today, so even if I don't agree with his political ideology, I respect him.

The same argument could have been made for an election in 1994. The prime minister of the time survived only with the help of minority parties. He continued until the end of his term.

John Major put himself up for reelection within his own party with a back me or sack me approach, which he won. If Gordon Brown won a secret ballot within his party to remain as leader, there would be no complaints from me for a general election.

Can I suggest that rather than trying to fight the old fight with every criticism of your party being answered with a comparison with the Tories, that you actually look at the reasons your party is failing. The demise of your party has nothing to do with the Conservatives. This is the sad fact. As someone who wants to see a conservative government, I'm quite at ease to say that I don't think last night's results were that successful for the Tories as they did not seem to attract votes from other parties, so the questions should be why? You should be asking similar questions rather than putting it down to the electorate punishing us for an expenses one-off, as some senior members in your party seem to be doing in the press today.

[Flynny]

The Tories have stated that they will cut taxes for the wealthy

Last I heard Osbourne was saying they might not even be able to change the (slightly ridiculous) 50p tax rate.

[hairy]

During times of recession politics has always been pushed the its extremes be it the far left or right. Lets hope its goes away with an upturn in the economy.

European politics has always had its extremists. We are not the ony country to elect such political parties. Their voice will be drowned out but the majority.

All this is, is embarassing