Thanks Keri.

You'd hope that the comments from Nick Eriksen would help lose some potential votes.
It's a shame (from a non-londoners viewpoint) that this has become the Ken & Boris show, perhaps the media still don't give enough credence to what the BNP are doing to make it worth giving them air time.

if labour voters choose to stay home and not vote and the BNP get their loons to the polls it really could have some terrifying results.

I disagree. Terrifying is too strong a word.

well, when you start writing my posts you can choose the lingo. i think it could have some terrifying results, hence i chose the word.

That's fine, but: Who's afraid of the BNP? The article is nearly a year old, but I don't think much has changed.
Personally, I'd go along with Nathalie Rothschild's cool assesment.

It's from Spiked, so I can't say your agreement comes as a major surprise.

I think she's probably right when she states that support for the BNP reflects a dissillusionment with the mainstream parties but that's no reason to suggest it couldn't have, as Keri rightly points out, terrifying consequences.

Germans' support for the N*zi's probably came out of dissillusionment with the Weimar regime's inability to solve their crippling problems rather than a deeply-felt support for the ideology of N*zism. But how quickly that turned!

Obviously, we're not there and it would be glib and stupid to make a like-for-like comparison between Weimar Germany and present day UK. But if WW2 has demonstrated anything, it is that there is no room for complacency in the fight against fascism.

That bears saying again.

Only 53 is 53 too many

How anyone posting here can appear to defend the BNP is out-fucking-rageous!

Good grief Jon - no one here is ''defending'' the BNP. Stop being such a drama queen all the time.
I went to an UAF counter demonstration against the BNP in Dagenham a year ago.
I wanted to see what kind of crowd the BNP could draw out, in their east London 'heartland'. As I've said on here before, their turnout to listen to the BNP's (now) mayoral candidate was pathetic.
That they might get votes from disgruntled voters is entirely possible. There will always be some fringe far right activity. Especially when you have people like Jon going around like a shrieking Mary, accusing anyone who doesn't completely go along with his opinions, as being (for example) a pillowcase wearing cross burner. There is also bound to be some reaction to the stifeling PC control that Ken Livingstone and his office bring to issues that might get some people to vote for the BNP.
You only had to watch Rageh Omaar's Despatches programme last night to realise that Jon's way of dealing with these issues is counter productive. They could perhaps bring us to a Weimar situation even sooner.

Btw, I saw that Madeleine Bunting in the Gaurdian yesterday, said of Rageh Omaar, (for making this programme): ''shame on him.''
Maybe she and Jon are right, and that you should not give the ''oxegen of publicity'' to issues like these.
And as for that YouGov poll?? I suppose you could just try to sweep it under the carpet like I'm sure Jon would recomend, but I think that in doing so, you can push up the number of votes for the likes of the BNP.

So Fred E, I agreed with Nathalie Rothschild's analysis, not just because it was in Spiked.
But that I agree with that outlook. (There is a difference).
It is possible for people on the left to have different views on this.

Damon agree with Spiked SHOCKER and anyone that doesn't is wrong. *yawns*

Please explain 'Weimar' (in your own words, for a change)

Do you mean there'll be an outbreak of concentration camps enclaved witihn BNP council offices, or an outbreak of experimental art installations accompanied by Bach?

"Only a little bit" of fascism is ok?

Who knew?

I don't believe that you are defending the BNP; however, I do think you underestimate them. 53 councillors is 53 more than most people would have believed possible for any party of the Far Right in this country.

Jon, you might find the reason I mentioned Weimar, here :
I just don't agree with that comparrison. It sounds too alarmist.


No, it's not OK. It's most regrettable. But whether you go about trying to reduce it's influence like Jon seems to want to, I have yet to be convinced. I was in Croydon's largest housing estate yesterday afternoon. It's isolated away from the town, with green fields sorounding it. I drive through it often, but yesterday walked through its long shopping parade. It looks worse than I ever remember it. I'm not kidding, it reminded me of the Chatsworth estate (Manchester) in the TV programme Shameless. Pitbull dogs, shell suits, large hooped earings and ''Croydon face lift'' hair styles. The BNP will pick up some votes there I'm sure.
People who Jon would call pillowcase wearing cross burners I'm sure. Why the BNP might get a hearing there is what interests me more.

And JBoyd, I don't think 53 councilors is so surprising. That's out of 20,000. If you watched the Rageh Omaar programme, or looked at that YouGov poll, you would have to acknowledge that there is a place for the likes of the BNP to worm in with their divisive racism.

Looking through The Voice (black) newspaper right now, there is a story titled ''Black Londoners must stop the BNP'' and explains that any vote (for a main candidate) is better than none, as it will help block up to two BNP members being elected to the London Assembley.
Fine and good.
It shows a picture of Ken and one of Boris.
Under Ken's it says : Diversity: Ken Livingstone is a champion of multi-ethnic London.
Under Johnson's it says: Boris Johnson has got BNP backing.
Is this what is meant by ''by any means necessary'' ?

Pretty underhand isn't it though? (Jon's style in fact ).

Just for a change, GIVE US YOUR VIEW.

I also the know the history behind Fred's post, you don't.

I have known something of that period in German history over the years. How would you know how much?
I lived in Berlin for some time, and would visit places in the city connected with historical events in the early 20th century.
Also remember, that I'd been at many a lecture about things like: ''The failure of the German revolution'' - Rosa Luxemburg, and subjects like that, at RCP meetings. I visited the site of Rosa Luxemburg's death on the Landwehr Canal. I read of Cristopher Isherwood's life in Berlin, and would walk past places associated with his time there. But I've forgotten more than I remember. I used to like in particular, to sit down in bookshops, with one of those large photographic books of the period. (The barricades in different parts of the city etc).

Jon, I consider all your questioning to be hostile and derisory. It's like being at a football match where the two sets of fans are goading each other. The home fans are jeering: ''Who are ya? - Who are ya?'' (that's you ), and however the away fans respond, the home fans just shout derision with a cry of: ''Aggggggggah ................... you wankers!!''

Instead of getting all Judith Chalmers, break the habit of a lifetime AND GIVE US YOUR VIEW

A Very Impressive 28-Month Long Piss Take


* the only possible explanation *

Being concerned about the fact that the BNP has 53 city councillors is NOT alarmist. I made a point of writing that I wasn't comparing Weimar with the UK (an absurd idea), but instead using it as a warning that fascism has a tendency to creep up on us while liberals keep on telling us not to overreact. So as the saying goes, the price of liberty IS eternal vigilance.

53 BNP councilors is fucking disgraceful and very, very scary. And in Britain that in living memory of many was fighting against fascism and suffering first hand some of it's ugliness. Really appalling.

Given that the National Front barely came close to winning a single seat in the 70s, I think that it is shocking, especially since they are polling around 20% in a lot of the seats that they stand for and don't win.

Interesting Leader on Boris v. Ken in the Independent today.

I can't vote in the Election, but I'd have to follow my conscience and go for Ken.
Boris, while being a smiley, bumbling media-friendly oaf just seems to have something slightly sinister going on.

Interesting article though.

Nice to see the papers giving them all a fair shout today. Ahem.
The Metro ran the story "vote Green and legalise drugs and prostitution".

Nothing like an alarmist headline is there?

Shit, why do I find this funny? (Maybe I am just apathetic?? )
And it continues like that for a couple of more paragraphs, (on a particular website I read). Hmmmmm. I'm sure Private Eye would do it better, but it tickles my funny bone for some reason. (I'm sure someone can tell me why ).

But seriously, on the issue about the 53 BNP councilors, and how serious that is. Of course it's bad, and worrying somewhat, but I would be amazed if there weren't some kind of far right wing/fascist party capable of picking up votes and council seats in the UK.
I don't know if anyone else knows any people who vote BNP. I know at least 4. One is an inlaw. Another I have known for 25 years, and lives just up the road from me. I don't socialise with him, but bump into him in the high street regularly. Yes he's a twat for his views, but I still stop for a chat.
Anyway, this is not the thread for discussing the BNP, but I will try to explain why I am not as alarmed as some people on here, (by 53 BNP council seats), on another thread.
Jon, please don't misquote me. (I said ''not as alarmed as some'')

For those with a vote who are still struggling to decide which way to vote for 1st and 2nd choice - this website may help.

I just did it and it said I should vote Ken first, Sian second, which is kind of how I was leaning anyway...

phew i came out ken and labour.

Kinda comforting, isn't it?!

it means i avoid a beating later.

I can't believe that anyone round here is not standing up for Ken. He's way to the left of the Labour Party (hence reluctant support from Brown et al). Oh gosh, aligned with Chavez, Castro, Sinn Fein...

Do we seriously want a mayor who talks about "picanninies with watermelon smiles"? Fuck off Johnson, and please vote Labour on May 1st folks.

OK, I probably got a bit too over-dramatic there. But I am not having Boris Johnson as London Mayor.

Can you people believe the consequences of Boris Johnson becoming London mayor? Not to mention the momentum it'd give the Tories on the national level?

This is what veteran human rights activist Peter Tatchell said yesterday in an interview with Birmingham's website Hagley Road to Ladywood
"My second preference will go to Ken Livingstone. Boris Johnson would be a big mistake. He is clownish, disorganised, not well informed, has little grasp of policy detail and is on record as saying some very bigoted things about various minority communities".
You can read the full interview with Peter Tatchell here:

I tried that and whilst some of the issues were difficult to relate to, not being a Londoner, it seems that the Green candidate would be my 1st choice, Ken my 2nd, The Left list my 3rd and Brian Paddick my 4th.

Interesting...

Nail & Head are 2 words that spring to mind.

As in, on London Bridge?

I have a problem in that there is no way I'm voting for Livingstone, but who else can I vote for?
It's only Boris and Ken who are in it, so by voting for someone other than Ken (or Boris), that gives a vote for Boris.
I realise I have to vote for someone, to keep BNP representation off the London Assembly.
I will vote green in one of my votes, as I think there should be a green voice somewhere on the assembly.
But Deborah Orr swung it for me, when she announced, ''Anyone but Ken.''
I think I completely disagree with Pete, and have explained before in some detail why I don't like Ken Livingstone's brand of Leftism. Same as I would never vote for the minor candidates that have emerged from George Galloway's Respect party.
And I think that survey thing that Sarah did a link to, asked leading questions. Like this one:
What can you say apart from ''agree''?? (Well I suppose ''disagree'' or ''neither'' - but they don't feel like the buttons you want to press.) What does making public sector workers resemble the communities they serve actually mean in practice? It's a bit more complicated than just clicking a 'feel good' button.

Btw Paddick is rather foolish when he says (about anti-social behavoir on busses), that the drivers have got to start sorting out these problems themselves. That means switching off the engine and going upstairs to take on groups of unruly youth.
So much for his opinion of himself as the candidate who knows all about crime and the streets.

Oh, and Socialist Worker is backing Lindsey German from the Left List.

But seriously - I would urge anyone here, who has a vote, to vote Labour on May 1st. I have more than enough issues with "New Labour", Brown and all of that. I quit the Labour Party years ago...

However it is seriously important that Ken Livingstone is re-elected as mayor of London. Please don't do "second preferences" (and I appreciate the Greens have a good line, and under other circumstances I would be with them).

Otherwise we will have a racist, sexist, Tory mayor, which is something I would like to avoid.



That wasn't a response to Damon's post btw. They just crossed over. Off out, now.

Probably

Serious question Pete - are any of those things I should actually want to align myself? Seriously? Sinn Fein?

Because they have so much democracy in Cuba don't they... jeez...

And Chavez... doesn't have all the makings of dictator at all... oh no...

Comments like that Pete seriously make me want to reconsider voting for Ken, even if I'm already holding my nose to do so.



Actually Damon, because the London Mayoral election is done on a 1st and 2nd choice system, it doesn't actually follow that any vote for someone other than Ken is a vote for Boris - more any vote not for Boris, is a vote AWAY from Boris... which makes it a bit easier.

To nowadays describe Livingstone as left of centre is incorrect I think. If Nicky Gavron was standing instead of Ken - if she got in - in reality it wouldnt be much different for London. (Except she wouldnt go around gratuitously offending minority groups like Jews and gays.)

EG Ken said virtually nothing when the police executed a man at Vauxhall tube. He hugged the police really tight. The old Ken would've been all over that one.

He has twice told tube workers to cross picket lines.

He has been an apologist for China hosting the olympics.

Red Ken????

Arturo I agree with you... that's just weird!

Sarah theres' a first time for everything!!! We may never ever agree again so lets treasure the moment! (I now think there may be hope for the Palestinians and Israeli's)!!!

I also agree with you both.
But the wider question for me is whether actually having a mayor at all is a good thing; I thing that it inevitably means too much focus on personality. I think that they got it right in Hartlepool when they elected the Football Club's mascot (a bloke who dressed up as a monkey).
As an occasional visitor to London, I can see the benefits of the congestion charge and public transport seems to be better than it was ten years ago, but I'm not sure whether you need a mayor to do that. I think that the GLC worked perfectly well.

I know what you mean JBoyd but in a city that has as many events as London does and wants to court big business in the way London does I think it needs that "personality" to head that up.
An anonymous council of people doesn't have the same attraction as meeting the London Mayor, does it?

I've worked for a city with a Council/City Manager (i.e. non-elected head administrator) style of government -- I'm not sure that's exactly what you're proposing JBoyd -- and it is still quite political, though perhaps not so personality-focussed as where there is an elected executive.

Well, you could argue that the UK's other major cities (and I think London's the only big City with an elected mayor) are reasonably well administered. The biggest problem with local government in London, in my experience, is that the boroughs are too small to be effective, and there are too many of them.
The GLC worked very well, in my view - Thatcher abolished it because it was too Left-wing. As for courting big business - I think one of the biggest problems in this country is that too much economic activity is concentrated on London, which is bad for London, and bad for the rest of England. And in any case, I'm not sure that the mayor's powers actually have much impact economically.



No, I don't like any system that puts undue power into the hands of any single figure - I just don't believe that the supposed advantages of personal accountability outweigh the dangers of individual fallibility. I prefer an elected assembly that then chooses how to manage its business in the way that most members support - whether that's a cabinet or some other mechanism. It's how local government has traditionally worked over here, and, old-fashioned as I am, I think it works best.
We have a strong tradition of municipal socialism that flourished in exactly that environment.

I think Ken's now winning as people face up to the awful reality of what Boris would be like.

I'm madly forwarding youtube videos to people to make the point - he really is a liability, casually racist and ignorant of some pretty key facts.

These are to songs by Kate Nash - a shame it's not BB, but it's pretty good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2MLyV7wsAE

and (I think) from the infamous "dickhead" comment when he visited liverpool to apologise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdU9Ju9gRqI


From the latter...

Sorry, if there's a thread about today's crucial elections in London, I've missed it. So I'm posting this here. And can I just say that if anyone here who has a vote is not voting for Ken (for all his faults - yes, I know) as first choice, or at least as second preference, I am never talking to you again .

Also: fucked up electoral system. I had to confirm with the people at the polling station whether the third list was done on a PR basis. "What is PR?" they asked. "Proportional representation", I reasonably replied. They didn't have a clue what proportional representation was, and advised me to ring up the central election co-ordinators / advisors.

I did, and exactly the same dialogue ensued. "I'll have to check with my supervisor", said the hapless apparatchik. Eventually I got the response I was expecting, but it really isn't obvious, and I make the serious point that thousands of votes are not going the way people want on this basis.

Basically the first two lists are obvious: first past the post for Ken or Boris (OK, including second preferences), then first past the post for your local GLA member in the second list. But the third IS PR-based, which means that (I think) 11 out of the 25 GLA members will be elected this way, on the basis of anyone getting 50000 votes (or whatever similar proportion, depending on the number cast) capital-wide will get a member elected.

Anyway, I was then able to explain this to the hapless people working the polling station. However, my serious concern, knowing the B*P's ability to work the system, is that this is how they'll get someone on to the GLA, if they do at all. The system really hasn't been made clear, although I'm not claiming it's undemocratic. But it's been fucking badly presented to the public.

Anyway, I voted Ken (mayor), Labour (local GLA member), and Respect in the PR bit. In the hope that George G has probably mobilised his support in the same way the BNP will have.



Anyway, I voted

Are you in favour of Sharia law Pete?

You seriously vored Respect... Jeez

Seriously - that's as bad as voting for the BNP!!!

Edited because I didn't realise there were two 'Respects' standing in London.

Anyway Ken looks as f*ck*d as London will be by Boris.

Hi Barmy

Not being a Londoner, could you fill me in on this or provide a link? Sounds worrying...