Your vote for the 2015 General Election

[ViolentPanda]

The timeline of what actually happened doesn't marry with what you're saying unfortunately.

Griffin went the electoral route with a change of image after they'd been beaten from the street.

He's compressed thirty-ish years of history into an incoherent mass.
BTW, I wouldn't say "beaten from the street", but they were certainlyvery windy about being opposed on the street, and like all bullies, they'd only come out to play if they thought that the odds were in their favour.

 

[Corax]

What utter shite. What do you propose instead of voting? Monarchy Dictatorship?

Personally, I'd like a benevolent dictatorship.

With only one small condition.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Labour.

 

[nino_savatte]

Andrew needs to do some reading. Ordinarily I wouldn't recommend Wikipedia, but it's a good place to start. I was watching a BBC documentary last week about this very same subject. It was surprisingly half-decent for the BBC, which tends to give the far-right an easy-ish ride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Soldier

 

[ViolentPanda]

Andrew needs to do some reading.

You think?

Ordinarily I wouldn't recommend Wikipedia, but it's a good place to start. I was watching a BBC documentary last week about this very same subject. It was surprisingly half-decent for the BBC, which tends to give the far-right an easy-ish ride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Soldier

Thing is, the media see the far right from a different perspective than the likes of us. They see occasional instances of far-right activism and think those instances, along with a core of misanthropic bonehead violence, comprise the sum of far right activity. It doesn't.
As for people calling UKIP "far right", I'm left wondering what actual experience they have of the far right that makes them believe that a bunch of anti-Europe spivs whose anti-immigrationism is directly linked to their anti-Europeanism; who have no core racist or fascist ideology; who are neoliberal, and who have no commitment to corporatism (as envisioned in fascism) or autarky, are "far right".
And let's not even get into the fact that European fascism has been about "unity" between the European nations for the last 30 years, not about Farage's Atlanticist wank-fantasy.

 

[ChrisFilter]

Labour.

Never did I think I'd see the day.

I plan to vote Labour but I'll probably just not bother. I live in one of the strongest Tory seats in the country.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Never did I think I'd see the day.

mum-tat is seriously considering voting labour next time round

which i think is a sign that the cosmos is fucked, or some such

partly the lewisham hospital closure plan balls-up

 

[Vintage Paw]

Suppose the only circumstances I could see myself voting would be for some kind of save the local hospital type candidate. In some thought experiment, if it was a marginal where a far left/anti-cuts candidate had a chance of winning, I'd probably vote - but in the same thought experiment, if it was Lab v Con marginal I wouldn't (what would be the point). As none of that is in play, I won't be voting.

In some constituencies, depending on the calibre of the office staff, the difference in no-difference MPs can be quite something in terms of how much those office staff are prepared to do in terms of casework for the constituents. I expect this fluctuates just as much within parties as it does between parties though, but on a balance of things I'd prefer a Labour MP because their dogsbody office staff are more likely (if they're any good) to want to help people. And sometimes they do, indeed, help people quite a lot.

So while the MPs sat in London might not be all that different, and the big picture effect of policies might be shit across the board, back in the constituencies it can make a difference to some people. I guess it's difficult to know whether that will be the case unless you know your MP's casework load and what they (in fact more likely just their office staff) tend to decide to take on.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Obviously the 30+ years prior to 2010, when militant anti-fascists were active, were immaterial.
As for "waded in fists first", I very rarely saw anti-fascists start aggro at demos. Your recollection may be different, but then as you were probably legging it while they stopped the fascists attacking you, you wouldn't have seen anything, would you?

Do yourself a favour. Do some research on the constituencies where the BNP "faces" stood. Look at the canvassing operations that took place there. In every constituency where a BNP "face" stood, and most plainly and publicly in Barking & Dagenham, those constituencies were blanket-bombed in the week before the election by a coalition of trade union members, UAF and HnH, Labour and non-aligned anti-fascists pushing an anti-BNP ticket. In most of those constituencies, the vote was higher than average. Do you know what that means? It means that their support hadn't collapsed, it'd been overwhelmed. BNP support and membership didn't start to fall off until late 2011/early 2012, after Griffin's financial chickens came home to roost.

Your argument only works if you're entirely unaware of the history of the BNP, and of the fact that from the early '90s on the BNP progressively withdrew from their "street soldier" strategy, and adopted an electoral one instead, causing militant anti-fascists to scale down their own operations. The change of BNP strategy allowed Griffin to siphon off his boneheads away from the BNP. The BNP had very little opportunity to play the victim, because militant anti-fascists were more interested in heckling the self-styled "democrat" than feeding his martyrdom complex.

You really are absolutely clueless.

There's no point accusing me of not having a clue, you need to explain where violence directed against them was even a factor in the collapse of the BNP’s, BM’s or NF’s support among their voters, let alone where it was the decider.

Perhaps Nino Savette can suggest something I should read on the subject (other than a Wikipedia page which has no relevance).

 

[danny la rouge]

Never did I think I'd see the day.

I can't see why it's so surprising. They are the custodians of Sas's type of conservatism. Alick Buchanan-Smith etc.

 

[Sue]

There's no point accusing me of not having a clue, you need to explain where violence directed against them was even a factor in the collapse of the BNP’s, BM’s or NF’s support among their voters, let alone where it was the decider.

Perhaps Nino Savette can suggest something I should read on the subject (other than a Wikipedia page which has no relevance).

http://beatingthefascists.org/

And there's even a whole thread about it on here that you may find enlightening.

 

[ViolentPanda]

http://beatingthefascists.org/

And there's even a whole thread about it on here that you may find enlightening.

He doesn't care to be enlightened. He's already got fixed opinions, and any opinions that deviate from his are therefore wrong, especially if you were one of the people who raised a hand to the far right.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There's no point accusing me of not having a clue, you need to explain where violence directed against them was even a factor in the collapse of the BNP’s, BM’s or NF’s support among their voters, let alone where it was the decider.

Once again, you're compressing a sequence of historical events into an incomprehensible mush.
I don't need to prove anything. My version of history isn't a fringe view, it's the consensus view. It's your view that's ahistorical self-righteous tosh.

Perhaps Nino Savette can suggest something I should read on the subject (other than a Wikipedia page which has no relevance).

Perhaps you could spell his username properly.

 

[nino_savatte]

Perhaps Nino Savette can suggest something I should read on the subject (other than a Wikipedia page which has no relevance).

Wtf are you talking about? Do your own research. I gave you a start, it's up to you to do some work.

Also, there is one 'e' in my username. How the fuck you managed to see two is a testament to your laziness.

 

[nino_savatte]

You think?



Thing is, the media see the far right from a different perspective than the likes of us. They see occasional instances of far-right activism and think those instances, along with a core of misanthropic bonehead violence, comprise the sum of far right activity. It doesn't.
As for people calling UKIP "far right", I'm left wondering what actual experience they have of the far right that makes them believe that a bunch of anti-Europe spivs whose anti-immigrationism is directly linked to their anti-Europeanism; who have no core racist or fascist ideology; who are neoliberal, and who have no commitment to corporatism (as envisioned in fascism) or autarky, are "far right".
And let's not even get into the fact that European fascism has been about "unity" between the European nations for the last 30 years, not about Farage's Atlanticist wank-fantasy.

UKIP is more Tea Party than BNP. Anti-intellectual, anti-immigration, nostalgic and reactionary; they're supported by big money from donors who also bung the Toxics money... exactly like the Tea Party/Repubs and the Koch Brothers.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Labour.

That for me is confirmation that Labour really is no different to the Tories. If an old right-winger can bring himself to vote Labour then the party is beyond redemption.

 

[Sasaferrato]

That for me is confirmation that Labour really is no different to the Tories. If an old right-winger can bring himself to vote Labour then the party is beyond redemption.

It is not so much a vote for Labour, as a vote against the SNP. The Labour guy has a 10,000 majority, however, with the polling results...

 

[Hocus Eye.]

It is not so much a vote for Labour, as a vote against the SNP. The Labour guy has a 10,000 majority, however, with the polling results...

Ah, got it.

 

[SpackleFrog]

It is not so much a vote for Labour, as a vote against the SNP. The Labour guy has a 10,000 majority, however, with the polling results...

 

[Andrew Hertford]

http://beatingthefascists.org/

And there's even a whole thread about it on here that you may find enlightening.

This is a review of a book about AFA, it doesn’t show where street violence against the BNP etc contributed to the collapse of their popularity. Can you link to any posts in the thread you mentioned which do?

The idea that their support collapsed nationally because some of their thugs got beaten up by some other thugs now and then is ludicrous.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Wtf are you talking about? Do your own research. I gave you a start, it's up to you to do some work.

Also, there is one 'e' in my username. How the fuck you managed to see two is a testament to your laziness.

Your link was about right wing ‘political soldiers’. It has nothing to do with my point that NF/BNP's massive loss of support had zilch to do with a handful of twats having a ‘ruck’.

And apologies for getting your name wrong but I’d chill out if I was you. I also have a non English surname and people spell and pronounce it wrong all the time. It really doesn’t matter, in fact I spell it differently myself now and then for the hell of it.

 

[nino_savatte]

Your link was about right wing ‘political soldiers’. It has nothing to do with my point that NF/BNP's massive loss of support had zilch to do with a handful of twats having a ‘ruck’.

And apologies for getting your name wrong but I’d chill out if I was you. I also have a non English surname and people spell and pronounce it wrong all the time. It really doesn’t matter, in fact I spell it differently myself now and then for the hell of it.

You're a fucking idiot and your 'point' was rested on a weak and discredited premise. My link was perfectly correct. You were clearly asleep while the NF and BNP went through changes. If I said 'flag group' to you, you'd probably think I was talking about a group of men who get together every now and again to talk about flags over a pint of beer. If I said 'Evola', you'd think I was talking about the virus.

You got my name wrong because you're lazy. If anyone needs to "chill out", it's you. How about you do some reading instead of spouting bollocks? Just a thought.

 

[chilango]

This is a review of a book about AFA, it doesn’t show where street violence against the BNP etc contributed to the collapse of their popularity. Can you link to any posts in the thread you mentioned which do?

The idea that their support collapsed nationally because some of their thugs got beaten up by some other thugs now and then is ludicrous.

Militant, physical force, anti-fascism was not about their "support collapsing".

It was about denying them the space to operate in and preventing them from capitalising on whatever support they did have.

However that the relentless physical defeats inflicted upon them also forced significant drop out rates from their activists and scared away many potential recruits was also a benefit from this strategy at that time.

All detailed in the book being discussed in the thread linked to above.

 

[Sue]

This is a review of a book about AFA, it doesn’t show where street violence against the BNP etc contributed to the collapse of their popularity. Can you link to any posts in the thread you mentioned which do?

The idea that their support collapsed nationally because some of their thugs got beaten up by some other thugs now and then is ludicrous.

You asked for a book recommendation. I suggested Beating the Fascists as a good place to start if you want to find out more about militant anti-fascism in the period mentioned. It's available from that website or you could try to get your local library to order it.

In terms of specific posts in the thread discussing the book. It's a long thread so I suggest you do your own search as I really don't have the time (or the inclination tbh) to do it for you.

 

[Citizen66]

The idea that their support collapsed nationally because some of their thugs got beaten up by some other thugs now and then is ludicrous.

Not one person has said that their 'support collapsed nationally' because of militant anti fascism. This is some straw man you're now clinging to after you've repeatedly demonstrated that you know next to nothing on the subject.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Militant, physical force, anti-fascism was not about their "support collapsing".

It was about denying them the space to operate in and preventing them from capitalising on whatever support they did have.

However that the relentless physical defeats inflicted upon them also forced significant drop out rates from their activists and scared away many potential recruits was also a benefit from this strategy at that time.

All detailed in the book being discussed in the thread linked to above.

But the point that was made which I’m challenging is that ‘rucking’ was a factor in the collapse of their electoral support.

Support translates into votes in people’s minds, from what they see on television etc and from what they talk about with their friends. Street ‘activists’ have little influence on how people decide to vote and most voters will rarely even come across them, or if they do they generally ignore them.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

Not one person has said that their 'support collapsed nationally' because of militant anti fascism. This is some straw man you're now clinging to after you've repeatedly demonstrated that you know next to nothing on the subject.

I did say “contributed to the collapse of their popularity” in the bit you edited out.

 

[butchersapron]

But the point that was made which I’m challenging is that ‘rucking’ was a factor in the collapse of their electoral support.

Support translates into votes in people’s minds, from what they see on television etc and from what they talk about with their friends. Street ‘activists’ have little influence on how people decide to vote and most voters will rarely even come across them, or if they do they generally ignore them.

Have you mapped their vote against the periods in which physical force anti-fascism of the AFA type was at its height and those when it wasn't? That might prove instructive for you.

 

[Andrew Hertford]

You're a fucking idiot and your 'point' was rested on a weak and discredited premise. My link was perfectly correct. You were clearly asleep while the NF and BNP went through changes. If I said 'flag group' to you, you'd probably think I was talking about a group of men who get together every now and again to talk about flags over a pint of beer. If I said 'Evola', you'd think I was talking about the virus.

You got my name wrong because you're lazy. If anyone needs to "chill out", it's you. How about you do some reading instead of spouting bollocks? Just a thought.

I may be lazy, but spelling your name wrong was down to being short sighted and I apologise for that. It’s definitely you who needs to chill mate, not me.

There was nothing wrong with your link, it just didn't have anything to do with the point I was making.