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.
11:53 am
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
12:32 pm
Anonymous said…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/james_delingpole/blog/2009/06/09/enough_drivel_about_the_bnp_already
12:41 pm
Stephen Lingwood said…
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.
2:16 pm
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).
1:20 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The dumbest thing about American Unitarian Univeralism

I'm glad Peacebang started blogging about this cos I was about to, and now it's like I'm joining in with a conversation rather than doing a big rant and having a go at Americans (though that is always fun ;-)). Why the hell do American (or is it just in New England??) UU churches take, like a quarter of the year off? In the summer they close. They CLOSE!! A church, closing. It's so bloody weird and wrong. Where does it come from? Why? Why? Why? Why do people need church less in the summer? Where are people supposed to go? Where is the Divine supposed to go? My church in Boston didn't close exactly, but moved to the smaller upstairs chapel, but the minister still had all that time off. Now I've spent most of my life around teachers and priests, both jobs where people think people don't put many hours in, when in fact they put in loads ('you only work Sunday mornings/9 to 3.25'). Teachers work hard and need their long holidays. Ministers work hard, a...
4 comments
Read more

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...
14 comments
Read more

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with ...
3 comments
Read more