SWP's back said:Skashion said:They will but I'd be amazed if the BNP won a seat. A lot of people on here don't seem to understand that political parties do not give two shits about your vote unless it will help them get a seat. I really do think most of the people on here do not understand at fundamental level how our electoral system works. I'm going to go back to the 1983 election just because it's the most extreme example I have. The SDP-Liberal Alliance won 7,780,949 votes but got only 23 seats. That's 338,302 votes per seat compared to the tories' 33,194. Numbers of votes count for very little. It's how concentrated they are that matters, and specifically, how you get those votes in those key marginal constituencies. To a political party, a swing vote in a marginal is worth a hundred or a thousandfold more than a safe vote in a safe seat.
No - I am well aware of that mate but it will be Labour heartlands that BNP focus on for reasons given above in terms of the general DNA of a BNP voter.
SWP's back said:No I am well aware of that mate but it will be Labour heartlands that BNP focus on for reasons given above in terms of the general DNA of a BNP voter.
But on what basis do you allocate airtime? If I stand as a candidate for the Helium Balloon High Voice Party, should I be allowed my 5 minutes on telly, or should I already have substantial evidence of support? We can't have every Tom, Dick and Harry doing PPBs.SWP's back said:Skashion said:They will but I'd be amazed if the BNP won a seat. A lot of people on here don't seem to understand that political parties do not give two shits about your vote unless it will help them get a seat. I really do think most of the people on here do not understand at fundamental level how our electoral system works. I'm going to go back to the 1983 election just because it's the most extreme example I have. The SDP-Liberal Alliance won 7,780,949 votes but got only 23 seats. That's 338,302 votes per seat compared to the tories' 33,194. Numbers of votes count for very little. It's how concentrated they are that matters, and specifically, how you get those votes in those key marginal constituencies. To a political party, a swing vote in a marginal is worth a hundred or a thousandfold more than a safe vote in a safe seat.
No - I am well aware of that mate but it will be Labour heartlands that BNP focus on for reasons given above in terms of the general DNA of a BNP voter.
-- Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:12 pm --
tommyducks said:SWP a party does not have to be elected to be given the right of free speech, e.g. a party political broadcast. I'm just questioning whether a party such as for instance Hitler's National Socialists should have been denied the opportunity to advertise itself in a public forum, thereby gaining recruits.
I think everyone has to be given the opportunity or you go towards a society the self-censors. I find that a scary thought indeed.
Hitler could never have gained power in a modern Germany, all opther things being equal. The night of the long knives etc would have left them under sanctions, expelled from the UN and with NATO knocking on their door. This would have stopped a build up of arms/men etc. LOng winded but you get my point.
tommyducks said:But on what basis do you allocate airtime? If I stand as a candidate for the Helium Balloon High Voice Party, should I be allowed my 5 minutes on telly, or should I already have substantial evidence of support? We can't have every Tom, Dick and Harry doing PPBs.
aphex said:SWP's back said:No I am well aware of that mate but it will be Labour heartlands that BNP focus on for reasons given above in terms of the general DNA of a BNP voter.
DNA of a BNP voter? what a stupid thing to say. so all BNP voters are knuckle draggers huh? i have friends that vote BNP, not, surprisingly because they are racist, but for the fact they will work on the behalf of the communities they live in.
this is the problem with generalisation - it always becomes a negative thing.
SWP's back said:aphex said:DNA of a BNP voter? what a stupid thing to say. so all BNP voters are knuckle draggers huh? i have friends that vote BNP, not, surprisingly because they are racist, but for the fact they will work on the behalf of the communities they live in.
this is the problem with generalisation - it always becomes a negative thing.
No you mis-read me. The DNA of a BNP voter was simply meant to mean the average voter. ie BNP voters tend to come from areas with high immigration, low emplyment, racial tension etc. Rather than home counties.
It was not a dig in the slightest.
bluebannana said:im not racist but agree with them that immigration needs to to capped i mean look at levenshulme and longsight there are barely any english people thats not being racits thats just a fact same with london most people there are foreign sorry if this affends anyone but then again living in a politically correct country people get offended by anything
aphex said:SWP's back said:No you mis-read me. The DNA of a BNP voter was simply meant to mean the average voter. ie BNP voters tend to come from areas with high immigration, low emplyment, racial tension etc. Rather than home counties.
It was not a dig in the slightest.
you would be surprised at how many 'home counties' as you put it are far more racist than your average people from say manchesters satellite towns. but they have no need to vote in the BNP do they?
the irony of it is the no win situation that develops from voting them in - the generalisation that comes with it. it's a catch 22 situation.