Skip to main content

Vote!

Comments

Anonymous said…
Rather than perpetuate the 'BNP are the evil bogeymen and should be ignored' message, isn't it time those on the liberal-left address the issues that the BNP and UKIP raise (albeit with different responses) and in turn, are gaining votes for.

It is clear from the recent European elections that there is a debate over national identity, immigration and state / constitutional issues that needs to take place.
Anonymous said…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/edwest/blog/2009/06/08/the_only_way_to_beat_the_bnp_is_an_open_debate_about_immigration
Anonymous said…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/06/09/enough_drivel_about_the_bnp_already
The BNP did not gain votes in the North West, where I live. In 2004 the BNP got 134,959 votes. In 2009 the BNP got 132,094. They got an MEP because people did not turn out to vote. Most people stayed at home. I posted that video on election day to encourage people who disagree with the BNP to go out and vote. It didn't work.
Anonymous said…
This is a flawed and misleading argument perpetuated by the media (and left activists) to try downplay the significance of this development - and in turn silence the debate over why it happened, what the solutions may be etc.

Turnout was lower across the political spectrum (down from 40% to 30% I think) - therefore, whilst it is to be acknowledge that research shows loyalist BNP voters are more likely to turnout, it still has to be recognised that the BNP's electoral performace was maintained and arguably improved slightly.

There are two big agendas coming into play here - a general fear from the political / media establishment over radical parties breaking through and specifically, a refusal to acknowledge the nationalist sentiments of a large swathe of the British public.

These sentiments - expressing themselves in votes for anti-immigration and anti-European integration parties - strengthen the argument that we need a national debate over future policies in relation to national identity, multiculturalism, immigration and the nature of the political system in light of European integration.

If the political-media elites and the left continue to act like ostriches on these issues by putting their head in the sands, the frustrations of the public will eventually manifest itself as a destructive beast (i.e more votes for the extreme right / left).

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th