Barking: Greens splitting anti-BNP vote
- Thread starter articul8
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It explicitly answers yours.
The reason as to why I asked the question, is partly 'money', his wages, and of course his 'new found friends in the euro parliment.
Little chance of him wanting a wage cut, it's little too soon.
It's matter of weighing up what he's up to. It will effect the campaigns in the constituency, is he 'serious ?
Plus it would leave his partner, the other Euro M.P. on his own, it takes one to move a motion and another to second it, for it to be discussed.
I can't remember hearing of any that hold both positions, so I don't think so.
----
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_the_European_Parliament
Expenses and recent reforms
Before the 2009 reforms, commentators in several member states (most notably Denmark, Sweden and the UK) accused MEPs of taking advantage of generous expense allowances for personal profit. These criticisms typically centred on two areas:[citation needed]
the amount paid to MEPs as expenses; and
the manner in which it is paid.
With regard to the amount paid, these are roughly equivalent to those paid to British MPs. As of 2002:
British MPs received an allowance for travel around their constituencies, but MEPs did not, despite the fact that their constituencies were much larger.[citation needed]
British MPs were paid a lump sum of just under £19,500 for accommodation at seat of Parliament, regardless of the time they actually spent there. MEPs received £150 per day attended and were required to sign in to prove attendance.[citation needed]
Both British MPs and MEPs were paid travel expenses for journeys from constituencies to Parliament. Contrary to widespread rumours, MEPs received 'YY economy class' air fares paid, not first class, plus an allowance per kilometre for the trip from their home to the airport. Only one journey was allowed per week.[citation needed]
British MPs were given first class rail tickets for spouse and children to Westminster up to thirty times per year. MEPs had no such allowance.
British MPs were given two return tickets per year to any EU parliament or the European Parliament itself. MEPs had no such allowance.
British MPs received unlimited travel expenses around the UK on parliamentary business. MEPs were given a similar allowance, but this was limited to £2,170 per year, plus an extra allowance if they needed to return home midweek.
British MPs and MEPs both received an office allowance. MEPs were paid 44% more than MPs, but this had to include postage and all equipment, whereas MPs also received unlimited free postage and free computers.
British MPs and MEPs both had a staff allowance. MEPs received 30% more than MPs, but their staffs are typically larger, and this amount had to cover staff pensions, temporary replacements for illness, redundancy costs at end of mandate, staff travel, insurance, administration, and employer's liability. MPs had those provided for free on top of their allowance.
At the end of their mandates, British MPs received four months of office allowances, while MEPs received three.
At the end of their mandates, MEPs get a silver medal, and during their mandate their train travels (TGV and Eurostar excluded) in Belgium are free.
With regard to the manner in which it is paid, complaints are often raised about the fact that MEPs' flights to and from Brussels were paid at a flat rate, regardless of the expenditure actually incurred. The price paid is for economy travel, not first-class[citation needed], but nevertheless this value could amount to more than the actual price of travel, even if there are no "budget" airlines serving Brussels. This too changed with the new Parliament elected in 2009, with only the cost actually incurred and documented reimbursed.
Another area of concern is the fact that MEPs' accounts are currently audited on a spot-check basis, not a universal one. Feeling this to be insufficient, some members voluntarily submit their accounts for a full independent audit annually. All UK Labour MEPs have done so since 2000, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats since 2008.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
LOL, I never called for a Labour vote anywhere since '97 when I was young and naive.
People will vote as they must under this silly system, but I could never endorse Hodge personally. If the fascists were to win (they won't) I dont think it would be wise, fair or accurate for other parties to blame one another.
The Black Hand
Unclean
I said not many people "want to for vote losers", people voting for losers doesn't mean they want to. Far from muddleheadedness, you lot just completely refue to think that there are other explanations. Period.
U're all fucked.
PS - i can't be bothered to play ball sometimes as you well know.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
So all those people not voting for the winning party in safe seats aren't doing what they want. Good to see that as usual you think you know best. You're a very singular pluralist.
Louis MacNeice
p.s. I'm not at all surprised you don't want to play ball on the EDL thread having made such a hash of it.
newbie
undisambiguated
I think there's a difference between voting 'for' and voting 'against'. In a safe Labour seat voting 'for' a good Green, IWCA or Socialist candidate is the most positive thing to do. In a marginal that 'for' vote has to be balanced with the possibility of letting in the tory (or in this case Griffin). Sometime, I'm afraid, it's better to vote 'against' than to vote 'for' and if that means putting a cross next to the poxy Labour party then so be it. The only thing it has going for it is that the other lot will be worse, but that is sufficient.
That might mean that the pipedream of building some left of Labour electoral challenge is further delayed, but looking around at the reality, it doesn't really amount to much anyway....
That might mean that the pipedream of building some left of Labour electoral challenge is further delayed, but looking around at the reality, it doesn't really amount to much anyway....
The Black Hand
Unclean
No, it is not a question of knowing best, it is a question of thinking about different possibilities. That's very silly Louis.
As for EDL, I am almost tempted to have a look cos I haven't made a hash of it. AS usual there is always another alternative than the one you think.
Louis MacNeice
Autumn Journalist
I'm quite willing to entertain the idea that large numbers of people positively choose to vote for candidates they know aren't going to win (I suspect for a variety of reasons including historic and familial identification with the party/candidate); pluralist you seems to be having a bit of difficulty getting to grips with this 'different possibility'.
Also you were a bit more than 'almost tempted'; now can you see one small part of the hash you made?
Louis MacNeice
Riklet
procrastinación
Endlessly choosing the lesser of two evils is what makes the political system in this country so rigged and fucked, I think fair play to the greens to be honest... meant to be a multiparty system really, and I can't see a green candidate signficantly splitting the anti-BNP vote. Then again, I know nowt about it really, aside from the depressing nature of every fucking vote being dualistic, oh plus the socialist "betrayal, betrayal, to the gulags!" brigade too... 
So, as we again have lots of new voters, and even more who just follow on, shall it now be explained to them ''what is a Tory ''.
Even more so as the Tory party ended in the 1830's [ they must really have been frightening, as their ghost has haunted the 'Whigs' ever since.]
It's the bogeyman, considering that so many have openly referred to the B.N.L.P. as the 'new Tory' party since they got in, in 1997.
How many have studied the form and practice of Charles the 2nd's government [recorded by the Whigs, as the 1st Tory] believed to be a closet catholic, his brother James apparently attempted to 'come out of the closet', but got the wind up and ran.
So an in depth investigation and dissection of ' what is a Tory' ?
So what would be so bad about 'nic nic the beak, Griffin' being in Parliament, is he so 'charismatic' and so powerful a speaker, that he would dominate all the rest of them ?
In both houses ?
Is it a joke ?
So why are so many, not only B.N.P. but N.F. and other varieties of loonies so much into German fascism, why not British, Mosley style, isn't it disgusting that so few of them are patriotic ?
In the Army, there is the private soldier up to below General, then the other tier, General and upwards, as we have now in the present army, two division with two extremely different views of the world, both of which are taught by the same one group.
So, by analogy, it is with the fascist sympathisers, a two section hierarchy, the lower study Hitler and the higher study Mosley, why ?
A question that should be asked of all the B.N.P. members, is why, when they took a position against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not that its gone beyond just registering such, as a way of making sure that the cowards amongst the members did not embarrass the party by not volunteering to go to the battlefields, has Griffin, who is legally trained, not done a breakdown of the false stories as told by M.P.s. according to the rules on evidence as used in the courts.
Hearsay evidence is not admissible, witness tampering is illegal, submitting statements knowing them to be false is a criminal act etc, so what would a lawyer make of it in analysis ?
How many members of Parliament are lawyers, both houses, and a Monarch that mumbles about 'rule of law' ?
'Rule of law', which is now a dead issue...as dead as the old labour party.
How many conservative governments has there been since 1945 ?So, be afraid, be very very afraid ! ! ! ! ! or even 'frayed at the edges....
newbie
undisambiguated
yes. We know that.
and?
what way round it is there? Apart from a stray hospital campaigner and Martin Bell what other beacons can you find outside the rigged system, in particular what left of Labour initiative has shown any signs of changing that?
In a marginal with FPTP any vote for anyone other than the main players is evading the question. It really is that simple, and wishing it were otherwise won't change anything at all.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Don't pick the lesser of two (immediate) evils. And no, sustained presence is putting the question on the agenda. it's not evading it.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
what does "sustained presence" consist of?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Work like the IWCA do and results they achieve. Which has to start somewhere and isn't helped by running scared of all opposition.
Dreamworld....nonsense.....
Have you joined the IWCA yet? The IWCA are just another sad sect like the SWP, Workers Power, Anarchist federation etc
They have been going for 15 years and have less members than they started with. Is that the kind of success you want to see?
Apart from Oxford what would you say were there highspots in the last 15 years?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I said work like the IWCA do - please don't reduce this to this sort of lefty-sectarian argument about particular groups.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
The IWCA model has promise, the thing is - in category terms, it must be a better idea to defeat a party at the ballot box with another party. Labour are often too complacent to bother their arse, the LDs too busy trying to hold what they have elsewhere and the Greens or Respect lacking in capacity.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I have no idea what that means. I'm not being funny.
But the lack of success of a group like the IWCA hardly fills me with confidence that the approach is worthwhile.
Yep i know they had some very very limited success in Oxford and Hackney but its like running into a gale force wind.
I would like to see a non hysterical democratic party to the left of labour. But i dont see it happening in a hurry.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes of course anyone trying this is metaphorically running into a gale, no one said it would be easy, but if that gale is threatening to blow you off the cliff then...
Exactly what part of the IWCA approach do you see as worthless outside of Oxford - genuine concerns about w/c concerns and action on them? Concern with anti-social behaviour? Ending m/c domination of public resources? What of this do you oppose - what of it is non-transferable outside of oxford?
newbie
undisambiguated
fair enough. I admire your faith (though I confess to being a bit surprised by it
)Thing is, the Liberals have been putting things "on the agenda" for donkey's years, some of them quite reasonable things. And they've got, effectively, nowhere. They've banged on with their pavement politics, apparently unable to spot the difference between glorified social work and political progress, year after year in order to gain the foothold which will eventually allow them to break the whole rigged system. And they've failed, and all they can really do is whinge that the electoral system needs to be reformed.
I admire their faith too (though not their politics, I've never felt inclined to vote for them). But faith doesn't change the fundamental reality of a marginal seat.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Part of their problem is that they've exclusively focused on electoral politics - that's all they are, that's all they're designed to be, and that their focus is designed on succeeding thorough the wider electoral system - i.e a change of electoral system through being king-makers in a hung parliament. Not really anything to with those who adopt the 'IWCA model' (the idea of street politics of course being old as the hills) though. Different content.
I dont know if this is derailing the thread. But the IWCA approach is still far too close to the orthodox lefts for my liking. Dishonest about the LP. Dishonest about themselves.
What happens in the IWCA when people dont agree with the Leader(s) same as happens in every small out of touch left sect.......control freaks try to crush all dissent.
Look at what happened in AFA. Look at what happened when RA got involved in any alliance....
If you think Oxford is such a good example how come you dont try the approach out where you live?
And what about other places like wigan,walsall etc....
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You've got a 20 years grudge - please don't pretend it's politics.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Me?
The BNP gain chiefly gain any "legitimacy" and mandate via the ballot box. Therefore the most direct way of defeating them is at the ballot box.
In any given ward where they hope to take a seat there will be Party X holding the seat (quite possibly unpopular and complacent)
There needs to be a non fascist party Y in competent opposition. By the time the fascists are 2nd place it could be too late because they could target the place strongly and gain from the unpopularity of Party X.
Who fits the bill for party Y?
In most cases it is whichever of Labour, LD or Conservative which isn't already in power as X. It will be rare for Greens or Respect to be 2nd in such a seat, even independents will be rare.
For logistical reasons it is very possible that they can't commit boots on the ground to challenging X.
In circumstances where I am most familiar X is Labour and Y is generally LD.
LDs are generally committed elsewhere in the city.
That's what I was trying to say, it is an analysis and sadly not a solution.
The best solution is a vibrant local non fascist party involved in ongoing community work rather than just the community work on it's own (which of course is valuable in it's own right, just not as politically targetedto the specific task of keeping a fascist party out of power)
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Line on - wrong way round.
Not being funny but the rest is just saying they need to be opposed politically isn't it? Am i missing something? |Or is is that it must be a party that you're emphasing?
Not being funny but the rest is just saying they need to be opposed politically isn't it? Am i missing something? |Or is is that it must be a party that you're emphasing?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i'm not persuaded you've given this much thought
