Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I'm going to move as soon as possible.
Out of the country.
You can lead the revolution
pretty annoying having leafleted against the BNP with a whole load of people, all of whom are not able to vote, to be let down be apathy, pure and simple.
= really, really silly.
plus, i'd find it quite insulting and patronising, finding a leaflet on my doorstep advising me on why I shouldn't vote for a particular party.
I can barely grasp your argument, why aren't all political leaflets insulting and patronising? They're just telling you why you should vote for a particular party. Campaigning against something is just as valid as campaigning for something.
they're not as big as they are because they have mind control devices etc or even that people are too stupid/ignorant to see past their vitriol. It's different to campaigning against something like a war because what you're campaigning against is free speech.
And the BNP have been massively in the public eye recently, not because of good things they've done. Don't tell me that hasn't had an effect on their popularity.
WARNING NONE OF THIS IS VERY INTERESTING
The BNP has been in the public eye cos they have lots of supporters. Some of whom are setting things like mosques on fire. This gives them attention, but they have a similar number of supporters to five years ago.
The history of racism in Britain is more complicated than 'the more attention they get, the better they do'. Is your argument actually that people sit down and say 'oh I saw those BNP boys on the news, THEY ARE SO HOT RIGHT NOW'? If that's the case, how did UKIP hold up their vote with very little media coverage in comparison to last time out?
I think there is a political vacuum today, where mainstream political parties have little ideological space between them. As this is happening during an economic meltdown smaller parties are attracting votes, including some extremist parties.
You're argument sort of contradicts itself. You imply that the BNP shouldn't get any coverage or attention, but that leafleting against the BNP is against free speech. Surely enforcing no media coverage of the BNP would be against free speech?
Ultimately the BNP got less votes than the Green Party and far far far more coverage. It'd be straightforward to give them an appropriate amount of coverage for a small but significant political party without given them the disproportionate amount they get now.
The bottom line is the more people hear how people are voting for the BNP despite the "authorties" telling them not to, and hearing said authorities denouncing the BNP, followed by claims by Nick Griffin there's a media conspiracy against the white working classes, the more they'll fit the news coverage into a framework of "the little party successfully fighting against a political system that wants to silence the truth". Which plays right into the BNP's hands.
in all honesty the mainstream parties should just treat them seriously and advise them to debate about real policies as in doing so it'd expose them as not knowing what they're talking about.
But I can see why people would moan that that's giving them a voice and giving them too much exposure, but it's a better alternative than all the parties looking down on them publicly and thus giving their supporters more reason to vote for them next time.
And besides, surely the fact that less people voted for the BNP than last time around should be considered a good thing in some respects? As you'd think during all this disillusion over mainstream politics you'd expect more people to vote for them than ever.
Especially as people make the claim that all BNP voters are disgruntled labour voters, which if working by that logic than the BNP should've been miles ahead this time around.
and it's something the left tend to do far too much - far more so than putting forward any kind of positive ideology.
I mean fair play to LC! if they want to make public their views and fair enough to phils if he's too young to vote and wants to do something to feel he's making a difference but ultimately I don't think the anti-BNP campaigns in themselves achieve much. Pretty much all papers, TV stations etc. criticise the BNP so there's not going to be anyone who thinks about voting who won't have heard that a lot of people don't like them. Unfortunately the BNP have turned this into a badge of honour and put forward a claim that all the people trying to silence them are either brainwashed by, or part of, a conspiracy to deprive "the people" of "the truth".
So sadly all you achieve by leafleting/campaigning against them is to tell a load of people something they already know and although those who believe the BNP are terrible will continue to believe that, those who believe there's a conspiracy to defame the BNP will continue believe that instead. Nobody's minds will be changed.
Obviously what LC! are doing, which might be more effective, is trying to push more people to vote and I entirely support that. But what's really needed to combat the BNP (aside from getting people who don't vote to vote) is, rather than to tell people how evil or immoral the BNP is, to take the concerns that make people vote for them and propose better solutions.
Behind the racism and intolerance is a genuine fear from certain sections of society that the country is run by people who have no interest in their views or opinion, that decisions are being taken without consultation that will profoundly effect their lives and that the development of the society they live in is something they're denied the ability to influence or control.
What the BNP have done is approached disenfranchised people, shown an interest and proposed a simple (if highly unpleasant) 'solution' to their concerns. The way to counter that is not, as a lot of politicians and sections of the media seem wont to do, to dismiss their concerns as an irrelevance but to engage with them and propose alternative solutions that don't involve racism or intolerance (and are hopefully a damn sight more accurate). The anti-BNP campaigns only tell people what to oppose - the best way to counter them is to give them a solution to support instead.
there are two things campaigning against he bnp is trying to achieve:
1. to make people realise that not voting is giving the bnp power. yes the other options may not be too hot but they are better than the bnp.
2. to change the minds of those who may support them by illustrating they are an extremist party. i can understand that this could come over as patronising, but surely you've got to at least try? it would hopefully make it less socially acceptable to vote bnp (or stop it becoming socially acceptable, depends where you live i suppose) - a bit like the anti drink driving campaigns.
the first is by far the more importantly given the current level of votes - no increase in the actual number of people who voted bnp, but higher numbers of people who didn't vote, so a higher % to the bnp.
And it isn't very socially acceptable. So I can't see two achieving much.
Number one is a more reasonable goal though.
...I did vote.
but then that might've just been worthy and annoying.
When were we supposed to do that then? Somebody should've said something