BNP gains 2 seats and UKIP gains 13 in EU

[Democracy In Action]

Reported as a "sad day" for British politics it is undeniably a miserable sign of the state that the British electorate is in, when they are desperate enough to put confidence in racist right-wing fascists. But that's democracy - I'm angry that such a hateful and bigoted party has been given authority of any kind but I think it's just as bad to deny people the right to support any cause they believe in. Is this a big deal? Is there any genuine worry from these results?

[Delts]

It just shows that most voters are disillusioned and too apathetic to vote for the big parties, don't care about the EU, and as always the minority parties jump on any chance they have.

[Cain]

The worst thing is that a lot of the people who are wringing their hands at the BNP being elected are also the ones who didn't vote "To show the government how angry I was with them"

Last week the Mail was trumpeting the low turnout as a shoeing for Gordon Brown. Now they're running a piece on the March of the Extremists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... crash.html

[LonelyPilgrim]

It's not just the UK. Right-wing parties, including extremist parties, have gained seats in the European Parliament all across the continent.

If I were Nero, I'd be playing my fiddle.

[exnihilo]

The UEN grouping has two more MEPs than it had a week ago. The socialists have many more, and the unaligned has been dramatically swollen by the Conservatives leaving the EEP, I'm not sure we're seeing the dreadful rise of the far-right bogeyman to be honest.

[Leo Comerford]

The BNP, you say? Fancy that.

[Jono]

I've got no love for the BNP, but I have less love for the way they're treated! They are a legal party in a democratic society, yet they are denied even the most basic courtesy by most other parties.

Communist regimes are amongst the most repressive, most abusive dictatorships in history. Stalin had far more people put to death than Hitler ever did. Yet for some reason we tolerate, even encourage, extreme left-wing political thought. Hell, the Union affiliated LeftSoc a society full of self-proclaimed Communists, Anarchists and other shades of subversive lefties. Yet if YBNP came asking to affiliate they'd never be given the time of day! Funny that.

The more I continue through life, The more I come to despise the liberal disposition (although not necessarily liberal political policy). The idea that you're free to say or do anything unless if offends my "enlightened" sensibilities, in which case we'll deny you debate, demonize you, and ban you!

As for the results, I don't think these results are merely a protest vote. There are deeper causes than just the expenses scandal and recession What the mainstream parties don't realise, or don't want to admit, is the reason the BNP are winning these seats is that they're now the *only* party seen to stand up and talk about the *hot* that are ignored for the sake of political correctness, but fifteen years ago were staples of mainstream political debate; mass immigration; European integration; security of British jobs for British workers. For labour in paticular, they're now seen as a party of London lawyers, rather than the traditional champion of the working man; a job the BNP and other fringe parties are more than happy to take on.

Rather than addressing the causes, the parties continue to attack the symptom of BNP electoral victories. In my view, they'd better start getting their shit together and start bringing those issues back into the debate. If they don't, don't be suprised if we start seeing BNP MP's before long!

[marco]

The BNP is still very much a fringe party; the continued media obsession, unfortunately, will do nothing but raise its status and help make it seem ever more prolific, in general more than it really is.

Looking at it logically, the BNP's vote has gone up by only 1.3%: the reason they've gained two MEPs is not because of a massive surge in support, rather primarily because of Labour's decline, and subsequently a) a swing towards to Conservatives b) former Labour voter apathy. With these changes, proportional representation means two MEPs, not that everyone has gone fascist.

People are most definitely not turning to the BNP, they're just turning away from Labour and either not bothering to vote, or voting for the Conservatives (on the whole, obvious), leaving the fascists, i.e. the type of people who have the urge to go and and vote, to pick up a greater proportion of the votes.

[Spike]

Holy shit it's Marco!

[macgamer]

I've got no love for the BNP, but I have less love for the way they're treated! They are a legal party in a democratic society, yet they are denied even the most basic courtesy by most other parties.

This is the dilemma which faces the media and liberal elite. Their usual tactic is to attempt to ban and ignore them and hope that they will go away. Perhaps it would be better to demonstrate with good journalism and academic criticism what the implications of their politics are and how their views would affect society.

Communist regimes are amongst the most repressive, most abusive dictatorships in history. Stalin had far more people put to death than Hitler ever did. Yet for some reason we tolerate, even encourage, extreme left-wing political thought.

Hear hear! Well done in reminding people of this, since Communism is so often misrepresented as being fluffy and kind and only trying to bring about a utopia where everyone is happy. Where the reality is a totalitarian state which denies its citizens basic personal freedoms and delivers very poor standards of living.

Hell, the Union affiliated LeftSoc a society full of self-proclaimed Communists, Anarchists and other shades of subversive lefties. Yet if YBNP came asking to affiliate they'd never be given the time of day! Funny that.

Your next point explains why the Union and the liberal establishment does this. If the Union and establishment were classical liberals then they would treat every person and group with consistency, whereas they are abominably biased.

The more I continue through life, The more I come to despise the liberal disposition (although not necessarily liberal political policy). The idea that you're free to say or do anything unless if offends my "enlightened" sensibilities, in which case we'll deny you debate, demonize you, and ban you!

I completely agree, New Labour in particular has been very successful in spreading this so called 'liberalism' which is highly select on what it tolerates, despite demanding that everyone tolerates diversity, across Britain's institutions and destroying those that do not comply. (E.g. Catholic adoption agencies).

[Thackary]

As far as I'm aware, the Union hasn't had to deal with YBNP or another similar group asking to affiliate, so we can't or shouldn't speculate whether the Union would or wouldn't affiliate them.

[Al]

It's a completely false comparison. LeftSoc is, as all affiliated societies must be, open to all students. Any YBNP - should such a group seek affiliation - would, if it had the same membership criteria as its parent party, not be open to all students and therefore would not be accepted. That is not a question of politics. It is a question of policies.

[Jono]

It's a completely false comparison. LeftSoc is, as all affiliated societies must be, open to all students. Any YBNP - should such a group seek affiliation - would, if it had the same membership criteria as its parent party, not be open to all students and therefore would not be accepted. That is not a question of politics. It is a question of policies.

I should have said SBNP. Anyhow, as far as I'm aware the SBNP has no paticular membership requirement. Certainly not any moreso than the political societies currently affiliated. One could argue that they have a de-facto membership requirement of being young white, and tatooed with at least one swastica, but that sort of inference is a slippery slope! One might ask if the Tunnocks society are doing enough to incorperate the non-chocolate-eating student body into its activities, or if the Islamic society were being too blatantly Islamic. With regards to LeftSoc, could the lanti-Thatcherite, anti-Israeli publicity the produced be construed as excluding pro-same from their membership ranks? I had at least one pseudo-complaint aired to me on that subject last year.

[the Empress]

I completely agree, New Labour in particular has been very successful in spreading this so called 'liberalism' which is highly select on what it tolerates, despite demanding that everyone tolerates diversity, across Britain's institutions and destroying those that do not comply. (E.g. Catholic adoption agencies).

You mean, don't comply with the law?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 295482.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ption.html

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/200906 ... -agencies/

[macgamer]

You mean, don't comply with the law?

The SORs are primarily concerned with ' outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation'. Which I would agree with, but, which I and many others considered sufficiently defended by pre-existing legislation.

I would disagree that adoption agencies are providing, necessarily, goods nor services to those who are adopting. Can children be rightly considered goods? In fact is should be considered the other way around. The service is and should be considered for the children and in their best interest. Adoption agencies are not kennels where couples can pick up pets.

Children have a right to a mother and father and they find themselves orphaned for one reason or another, but essentially because there was a breakdown in their access to good and supportive a mother and father.

This is a law that restricts a significant proportion of Britain's population, not just Catholics, in their freedom of conscience. By not agreeing with same-sex couples adopting they are committing a thought crime as far as the lobbyists behind the SOR bill are concerned. Thankfully law cannot (yet) convict people based on thoughts.

However there was a time when this was the case regard:

Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat. It is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No.

The way the SORs were implemented lacked justice, respect for the freedom of conscience and the rights of children.

This was no accident, it was done so deliberately to destroy the Catholic adoption agencies, which made up barely 4% of all adoption agencies and dealt with the harder cases. Catholic parents who could no longer take care of their children for whatever reason, also had somewhere to turn, knowing that their children would be brought up in an ethos they would approve of.

It was also a deliberate attempt to change peoples' minds by making it illegal to disagree with same-sex adoption.

Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat. It is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No.

[schmod]

Surprised it hasn't been done already.

[the Empress]

This is a law that restricts a significant proportion of Britain's population, not just Catholics, in their freedom of conscience. By not agreeing with same-sex couples adopting they are committing a thought crime as far as the lobbyists behind the SOR bill are concerned. Thankfully law cannot (yet) convict people based on thoughts.

The law is not about you, it's about giving same sex couples the same rights as anyone else. Your 'Freedom of conscience' here = belief that homosexuality is wrong = homosexuals should have < rights.

[LonelyPilgrim]

This is a law that restricts a significant proportion of Britain's population, not just Catholics, in their freedom of conscience. By not agreeing with same-sex couples adopting they are committing a thought crime as far as the lobbyists behind the SOR bill are concerned. Thankfully law cannot (yet) convict people based on thoughts.

The law is not about you, it's about giving same sex couples the same rights as anyone else. Your 'Freedom of conscience' here = belief that homosexuality is wrong = homosexuals should have < rights.

Only if one has a 'right' to adopt. I get a little twitchy when 'rights' start getting expanded beyond the basics. Not saying I oppose the policy of equal adoption practices... just saying could we please construe the policy in the context of something other than rights?

[exnihilo]

It's not even about homosexuality, it's about simple equality before the law, and that should apply to us all, not to some arbitrarily defined subset.

[Hennessy]

The BNP is quite left-wing in terms of economic and welfare policy, that's often forgotten as people try to distance themselves from anything to do with them. Then there is this ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009 ... -far-right) frankly appalling article in the Guardian today.

One thing that does endear the BNP to me is their ability to torment left-wing journalists simply, it seems, by existing. They pose far less of a threat than trade unionists or animal rights activists, to list two groups that the Guardian is often sympathetic to (and bankrolled by).