The above person is wrong and needs to be corrected.

You are correct to say that for any party to get elected they will need 8-10% of the total vote.

However you are wrong to suggest that if you vote for a non-mainstream party then the BNP are more likely to win a seat.

The Euro & GLA elections are on a list system. The seats are awarded on a percentage basis. Therefore a vote for any of the non- BNP candidate means that the BNP has less of a chance of getting elected, even if you vote for a party which is only likely to get 1-2% of the vote.

The BNP bank on a low turn out, the lower the turn out the better chance they have. The higher the turn out then it becomes more difficult because there is a limit to the numbers who will vote for them.

Therefore the best way to stop the BNP is by..

1 Make sure you vote. (Any of the non-BNP parties will have the same affect)

2 Mass campaigning as UNITE is doing.

I appreciate your scepticism red pepper, but it is unfortunately the case, and I hope I can explain why. If I have got it wrong, by all means point it out in these examples. Unfortunately this is technical and we have to start using some maths (you can enter these into the D’Hondt calculator if you download it from the above address).

The 1999 Euro results in the North West for the “big 3” were:

Tories 35.4%
Labour 34.5%
Lib Dems 11.7%

So the total share for parties other than the big 3 was just 18.4%


Scenario 1: Bigger vote for alternative parties

Tories 33% (4 seats)
Labour 30% (3 seats)
Lib Dems 14% (1 seat)
4th Party 8% (1 seat)
5th Party 7%

In this example, 23% of people vote for parties other than the big 3. The 4th placed party gets elected, because the total share of the vote for the bigger parties is reduced. The 4th placed party would actually only need 7.6% in this scenario.


Scenario 2: Big 3 parties hold onto a larger share of the vote

Tories 36% (4 seats)
Labour 33% (4 seats)
Lib Dems 14% (1 seat)
4th Party 8%
5th Party 7%

In this example, the share of the vote for parties other than the big 3 is 17% and the 4th placed party would need to up their vote to 8.3% to get someone elected.


The D’Hondt system is tough to use for predictions because the possible results are endless. But as a rule, a bigger share of the vote for the big 3 makes it more difficult for a 4th party to get elected (a good thing if the 4th party is the BNP). Even as someone with no intention of voting for the big 3, this is something that remains a fact.

If total turnout increases and there is a bigger share of the vote for the five alternatives discussed above, it will mean that it is easier for a 4th placed party to get elected. This is a bad thing if the BNP are in 4th place.

This is why it is absolutely essential to ensure that the BNP are not in 4th place on the night of June 10th because votes for non-mainstream parties other than the big 3 will definitely be larger than the 18.4% recorded in 1999.

Anti-racist voters need to understand is that tactical votes should not split between competing options, especially if a lot of former Labour supporters switch to the anti-war parties. These votes need to go to a party that can finish in 4th and stop the BNP that way.

But I do accept that if voting is greater overall, for example, double the 19.6% turnout in 1999, it would dilute the BNP vote.

However, that assumes a couple that the BNP relies on low turnouts, and some of the most recent research suggests that such an assumption is unwise. We have to be vigilant.

 http://www.irr.org.uk/2004/april/ak000015.html

Any group that splits the labour vote is opening the door to fascists, like "respect" will, who by the way, segregate their meetings by sex so as not to offend the Muslim Clerics it panders to. To suggest "Respect" are a mass campaign is further tripe, as they have no concept of the issues that face working class voters. Shouting "fascists" at the BNP does not work, nor does parachuting into the area. They are a failure as the SWP, were a failure as the Socialist Alliance and only do this so as to get BNP councillors elected so that they may continue sponging off the decent, but gullible members of the public who feel disenfranchised by new Labour. If respect really did have "respect" they'd fuck off and let the adults play politics, as they clearly do not understand the politics themselves. Stickers and loud haillers do not defeat the fash and if respect were in touch with the public, they'd know so. Their politics are about as fucking offensive to working class voters as the BNP are to black voters. The difference is, the BNP know that. Respect does not.

Much as I understand W Benette's anger at the BNP and desire to defeat them, we are trying to work out exactly how to do that. We are trying not to criticise one another.

Whatever your views on how we should fight fascism (which is an ongoing campaign which will be with us long after this election), it will be a hell of a lot easier for us as anti-racist campaigners if they don't have a Euro MP, they don't get £200k a year in Euro expenses and Griffin doesn't get a cloak of respectability.

The issue here is not splitting the Labour vote because Labour are not going to get 36% this time, and may not even get 32%. This is not because of other political parties but because they have pursued bad policies. This means it will be easier for a 4th party to get elected - we are just trying to work out the best way to make sure it is not the BNP.

Red Letter is wrong to say that the votes are awarded on a proportional basis.

This election uses the d'Hondt formula that can create quite significant anomalies. For example in the South West in 1999

Tories got 41.7% of the vote and 57% of the seats
Labour got 18.1% of the vote and 14% of the seats
Greens got 8.31% of the vote and no seat

The way the system works is if you vote for a party that gets less votes than the BNP then your anti-racist vote doesn't make any difference to the result.

This is not a question of opinion that is just the way it works.

So if the BNP get 9%, the greens get 8% and respect get 2% then the 10% that voted Green or respect make no difference to the result. Depending on how the major party vote splits the BNP may get a seat.

If the BNP get 9%, the Greens get 9.5% and RESPECT get 0.5% then the BNP would not get a seat which ever way the other party votes split.

That does not mean that simple opposition to the BNP should decide how you vote - that is personal choice. But this misinformation about the voting system really depresses me - nearly all RESPECT lefalets say that becasue it is a PR election then voting RESPECT cannot let the BNP (or Tories) win - but this just isn't true.

What does need mentioning is that if the BNP does win a seat then the blame lies with
i) the BNP voters
ii) the mainstream parties who have whipped up hysteria about asylum etc
iii) the mainstream parties for not addressing the social issues the BNP feeds off

(All this is different in London where a modified d'Hondt system is used with a first round of seats allocated on first past the post constituencies - in London the second d'HOndt round is affected by the overall number of votes cast, and therefore voting for any non-BNP party does decrease the channces of the BNP getting a seat)

The problem with the BNP is lack of clear PR. A few choice symbols helps clarify what the BNP really stands for.

I hope you are thinking of making an exception to your rule non-voter. We need people like you to keep these racists out, even if you wouldn't vote normally. How about it?

I'm in shock. Radio 5 Live actually commented on tactical voting in the North West this morning. Maybe, just maybe, the message is filtering out.

The main point is very simple : USE YOUR VOTE ! The BNP have a real chance of getting a North West MEP in the European elections. There is no such thing as a wasted vote in these elections. Every vote not cast for the BNP is an anti-BNP vote, which will reduce their share of the vote and their chances of getting elected. If you think that a particular scenario is likely and you want to use your vote tactically, then by all means do so, but the important thing is to vote for someone.

I don't accept the claim that Respect standing will achieve nothing but to split the anti fascist vote. Remember that turnout in 1999 was 19%. Millions of people feel cynical and alienated from mainstream politicians. If Respect can succeed in galvanising a few of these people into casting a vote, this will increase the overall turnout and reduce the BNP's share of the vote, regardless of whether or not Respect poll higher than the Greens.

I'd also like to say that stopping the BNP is not the only issue in these elections, important though it is. There is a possibility that the Labour vote could go into meltdown on June 10th. Even that most blinkered of groups, Labour MPs, can see this. A disastrous Labour vote could see Blair being pushed out of office by the autumn. This would reverberate around the world, in every country where people campaigned against the Iraq war. They would believe that Blair had lost his job because of Iraq. And they would be right. The war symbolises everything that is immoral, deceitful and untrustworthy about this government. Of course we can't trust Gordon Brown any more than Blair. But think what getting rid of Blair would mean for our side. Then think what do we have to do to achieve it. Telling people to vote Lib Dem is not going to inspire the 80% of non voters who see them as little more trustworthy than the government. We need antiwar candidates who can speak to the people who feel angry and disenfranchised. This is why Respect are standing in these elections.

tactical voting to keep out the bnp can mean logically encouraging people to vote labour. the difference between the bnp and labour is that labour carry the apparatus of the state in their hands and they use it. they take us into war, they deport people into danger, they play the race card. do you think the conservatives or liberals would do any different? not if you look at history. what about the greens? i've heard the greens want more police. not wanting to piss off people who would vote green cause i've always thought in the past, well they care about some of the things i care passionately about but more police? whats that for? unless its the usual popularist vote-gaining game. anyone from the green party care to explain?

the power difference between labour and the bnp is huge (and i know the bnp itch to close that gap by plugging into the state apparatus, but the reality is that they will be itching for a long time because people are not as green as cabbage looking - as my gran used to say). yes, i know they've made gains but it should be seen in proportion to what the other political parties have and the messages the other political parties send out to people, and more importantly, what the other political parties actually do.

keep out the bnp is a negative message.

and the final alternative, is respect. what you think about respect is up to you but i wouldn't vote for a party that refuses no borders, and thinks asylum should be defended on a case by case basis (dependent presumeably on making judgements about other peoples lives). also, i am still deeply uneasy about the george galloway, anti-choice, pro-hanging agenda. anyone really trust that man if he gets power and votes according to his conscience? and the relationship with labour that respect has.

so i don't see any reason to vote at all.

fight the bnp (because they are racist shits), but think about what is happening on a wider scale politically, who influences who, before you consider whether to vote or not.

and more positively, why do people vote bnp? not because they are racist necessarily but often because they are completely disenfrancised from the political process. They know what the shit is. Asking people to vote for any of the others seems to me a fairly useless tactic, not least because the majority of people don't vote (because they are completely disenfrancised etc etc). which is also why the campaign to get people not to vote is pretty useless (because they already don't).

why do people vote bnp? seems to me, if more and more people were involved in whats happening to people, and working alongside them, even in simple things, even if it has to mean working with politicians you know are on the career trial, like the recent swinton open space campaign, like the campaign on barlow moor, like the campaign about platt fields becoming a car park, like school closures, like stuff around housing benefit and the huge interest on debt, like cleaning dumped crap off estates, like so much other stuff, then we could actually be part of a real fight against the bnp and start to create real community alternatives with people.

its not as sexy as throwing eggs at the bnp and getting photos for indymedia. Not that i've got any problem with that. Throw bricks. but other stuff takes longer, takes more effort, takes time.

but i really cannot see any logic for asking people to vote and i can see a lot of reasons why not.

The answer to whether you should or should not vote is pretty simple. It takes a few minutes and helps increase your say over the direction society goes.

It's not the most important political activity you can engage in, by voting alone we cannot achieve a fairer society or hold down fascism - BUT that little bit of paper is a little contribution that people (cliche) fought and died for.

If the BNP gain significant representation they will grow massively and will give encouragement to every racist bigot in this country. The media will have to treat them as a respectable democratic party, even though they aren't and it is a step towards the BNP building a mass organisation. If they get an MEP it will be a set back for every decent person in this country.

You can chose not to vote against the BNP, but you won't be proud of the fact if they get a candidate elected.

On the technical question though - what's the best anti-BNP vote - the real answer is it depends where you live. If one of the minor progressive parties can beat the BNP then you should vote for them as the best anti-BNP vote, in other places you might be wise to vote for labour or lib dem, personally I couldn't do that as both parties support the occupation and it would stick in my throat.

no non-bnp vote 'helps' the BNP - but some are more effective than others.

Someone tell me how RESPECT doesn't support the working class? Any party that supports free education, nationalisation of key industry, a minimum wage of £7.40 and a Europe based on "need not profit" supports the working class?

Obviously you can vote for who you want in these elections, and people vote for all sorts of reasons. You can even abstain, as most people will!

However, the following statement simply isn't true:

"Every vote not cast for the BNP ... will reduce their share of the vote and their chances of getting elected."

Similarly Socialist Worker said today, which also just isn't true:

" proportional representation system means a vote for any other party increases the turnout, so the BNP must win more votes to get elected. Michael Lavalette, Respect councillor in Preston and lead candidate on Respect's north west list, says, "I think a Respect vote is the best anti-BNP vote."

I know that electoral systems are not very intersting, but they do work in a particluar way, which is decided by the law and is not open to opinion. In this election they use the d'Hondt formula. This is not conjecture, why don't Red Letter, Bolshevik, and Michael Lavalette for that matter spend five minutes checking the electoral system actually being used, before propnouncing on the subject?

Not all PR elections use d'Hondt, and in other systems the statements would be correct. Perhaps Bolshevik is basing his argument on the system used to elect the 1917 Constitutional Assembly in Petrograd? - I don't know. Perhaps in Russia in 1917 a vote for Respect could have stopped Admiral Kornilov winning a seat.

In this election, in the North Wrst, in June 2004 - not all elections, just this specific one, then the seats are not awarded based upon the proportion of votes, they are decided using d'Hondt. that means it is a question of fact that all votes that go to parties who poll less than the BNP will not effect the result.

In London it is different - turnout does matter for the GLA elctions, but in the North West in the Euro elections turnout doesn't make a difference.

Now I am not recommending who you vote for but please will RESPECT supporters stop spreading misinformation. Is that too much to ask?

If you think I am wrong then go away and check how the d'HOndt system works and then explain to me why I am wrong. Don't just say "Oh I don't accept that argument"

A well written article Heather, one of the best I have seen on here.

The major problem isn't the BNP, it is that society is divided and has been allowed to divide in many different areas. The people who vote BNP are in many cases voting out of mischief and out of protest; the forgotten white working classes living on the worst estates and having miserable lives. And there are people who like to piss off all the trendy self-righteous politically correct middle class types as well.

If you have money and a good social position in life, all this seems very cosy, let's all be non-racist and politically correct et al, but for someone who has no work, bad housing, very limited horizons, it is to be frank one sick and sad little game played by weekend revolutionaries so they can look cool and hip in front of their mates. That the BNP are around at all, says loads about the state of Britain. Britain IS divided economically, socially, geographically and in terms of life chances, housing, health and so much more. It isn't just racism we should be tackling, but the economic issue that allows London and the South East to have the largest slice of the pie, whilst every other area, and certainly the North, is sidelined and forgotten. These are the REAL issues, the issues that are always sidelined for more 'trendier', more 'worthier' causes; DON'T challenge middle class hegemony and control of the best jobs, DON'T challenge middle class control of local politics, DON'T challenge middle class control of local power, educational facilities, best housing and so on and so on.

The so-called alternative movement, the left movement, socialists, class war and the like are riddled with so much hypocrisy and bullshit, and pretend revolutionaries, that the majority of genuine working class people have become completely disillusioned with it all; and of course, this seems to be the hidden agenda. Get us all so pissed off that we believe any bullshitter that comes along if its packaged well enough. Left politics is now more or less a game played by the middle classes while they are waiting for their career to take off. The joke is on them, but the punchline is on us.

The BNP has raised its ugly head because they are feeding of massive waves of dissatisfaction, like Al Qaeda and angry young Muslims. This country is economically divided, and until this is answered by a party, with a desire to level out the vastly unequal resource distributions in this society, and make it a little fairer and genuinely a little more egalitarian, all politics and all political parties in this country will remain basically irrelevant to large swathes of the population. If the so-called revolutionaries and middle class politicos were REALLY concerned about racism, they would tackle and talk about the economic root causes, instead of pussy-footing about tactical voting and the like. But then, we don't want to attack the wealth creation of the middle classes, do we? That would never do!

Andy,

What you say is true in many scenarios, but I did not find it difficult to come up with an alternate scenario in which an increased vote for Respect increased the overall turnout and prevented the BNP getting elected. Here goes :

Scenario A : Respect fail completely
Labour 44%, Tories 26%, Lib Dem 20%, BNP 6%, Green 4%, Respect 0%
MEPs elected : Labour 3, Tories 3, Lib Dems 2, BNP 1

Scenario B : Respect attract large numbers of non voters, increasing turnout. Respect's share of the vote rises to 5%, all other parties shares drop by 1%.
Labour 43%, Tories 25%, Lib Dems 19%, BNP 5%, Green 3%, Respect 5%
MEPS elected : Labour 4, Tories 3, Lib Dems 2

This is a telling scenario because it shows that Respect do not have to beat the BNP into 4th place and win a seat themselves in order for Respect votes to make a difference in kicking out the BNP.

You may still decide that tactically you favour a different option if your priority is to get the BNP out. Fair enough. What I object to is your saying that votes for certain parties "don't count" unless they get elected, as I think I've shown that this isn't necessarily the case.

bolshevik – with all due Respect… this is wrong, wrong, wrong. Firstly, you did not use the D’Hondt calculator, so your seat allocation is completely wrong. Try it again.  http://www.cix.co.uk/~broadway/pr95/

In your Scenario A the MEPs elected would be 5 Labour, 2 Tories and 2 Liberal Democrats
In your Scenario B the MEPs elected would be 5 Labour, 2 Tories and 2 Liberal Democrats
Exactly the same.

In both scenarios, you are quoting 100% of the results going to just 6 parties. You fail to consider that 4% or more will go to the others.

Next up. Did you look at the results in 1999?

Tories 35.4% and likely to hold about the same share

Labour 34.5% and likely to lose votes

Lib Dems 11.7% and a certainty to improve

UKIP 6.6% and will be lucky to hold onto their deposit with BNP and Tories slicing up their vote (but as an anti-racist you want them to do well and split the nationalist vote and stop the BNP adding 6% to their total)

Greens 5.6% and a certainty to improve because of Caroline Lucas, the war in Iraq and GM Foods (nice middle class vote winner). Out of 5 million voters in the North West, I know of just 1 Green who has joined Respect. I can already say that I know many, many more than 1 who will be voting tactically to stop the BNP even though they support Respect

Liberals 2.2% likely to stay the same or drop (tactical votes to another party)

Respect (Socialist parties got less than 2% combined in 1999) – set to improve, but will do well to hold onto their deposit.

Finally. Searchlight: January. 9% FORECAST FOR THE BNP. Not 6%.
Even if we assume the BNP vote is diluted by a postal ballot (no guarantees) then we are still hoping that they poll less than 8% but planning for a worst case scenario where we can still deny them a seat even if they get 9%

The whole point of putting this out on Indymedia is to provide people with the facts. I want people to vote for a 4th placed party that will finish ahead of the BNP. Don’t be blinded by your own political loyalties – there will be other times to vote for your political preference and you can judge Respect’s success by their performance in other regions. But right here, right now, you need to consider what is the CORRECT tactical vote in the NORTH WEST.

This debate has been discussed for months now, so if you do want to put out scenarios (and I'm sure there are some) that could possibly support your case, I'd recommend you spend hours or days calculating the alternatives before contributing again. A lot of us have put some serious time and energy into this to work out the best way to keep out these racists, and we are not helped when a comment comes along that is completely misinformed. Like Andy I believe the desire to see a new force emerge on the left is clouding the vision of many – don’t be one of them.

Would you be able to live with it if voters on the left remain ignorant of the truth or are mislead by those blinded by party loyalty? Stop the BNP! Make the correct choice.

ENTIRELY SEPARATELY

heather – I know your feelings are 100% genuine. I’d also say that we could probably pick holes in every political party, including the Greens and Respect, and hence a natural suspicion of politics. My only question to you is that if there is an option even slightly preferable to the BNP and New Labour, who can stop the first of these getting elected, and punish the second one for some of the most repressive and dishonest policies of the last few years, surely that is worth a vote? I also know that if someone like you were to say you would vote, as an exception in this one instance, it would be 100 times more powerful than someone like me making the case.

I hope you keep thinking about it. There are many paths up the mountain.

Letter, New Statesman magazine.

 http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/nsletters.htm

Apologies, I was using a slightly incorrect formula in my previous e-mail.

However I think the point that I was making was valid. It may well be that the most useful anti-BNP vote is a vote for the party most likely to beat the BNP into 4th place. But it's also possible that votes for minor parties who don't end up getting any seats could contribute to keeping out the racists.

Scenario C : Labour vote collapses, BNP succeed in getting the predicted 9%.
Tories 35%, Labour 26%, Lib Dems 18%, BNP 9%, Greens 5%, UKIP 4%, Liberals 2%, Respect 1%. MEPs elected : Tories 4, Labour 2, Lib Dems 2, BNP 1

Scenario D : Respect attract a significant number of non-voters, increasing overall turnout. Respect's vote share rises by 3.5%, the other parties all drop by 0.5%.
Tories 34.5%, Labour 25.5%, Lib Dems 17.5%, BNP 8.5%, Green 4.5%, Respect 4.5%, UKIP 3.5%, Liberals 1.5%. MEPs elected : Tories 4, Labour 3, Lib Dems 2

Of course, in scenario D, if the whole anti-war vote had gone either to the Greens or to Respect, then there would have been an anti-war candidate elected. But the fact that the anti-war vote was split did not let the BNP in : in fact in this scenario because the turnout was increased by the anti-war voters, the BNP just failed to get a seat.

A good try bolshevik – I admire your persistence. I’m also getting optimistic that you seeing the truth here, as you are saying that the vote for the 4th placed party may well be the best anti-racist vote. Keep exploring the options.

Let’s look at the actual maths of these additional voters in your new scenarios.

Let’s assume that Scenario C has 1,000,000 voters. We can make the maths simpler if we pretend this is 1,000

That’s 350 for the Tories (probably a bit high)
Just 260 for Labour (pretty low)
And 180 for the Lib Dems (they would be over the moon)
BNP get 90 (ouch)
Greens get 50 (much lower than predictions)
Respect get 10 (pretty harsh)

If we simply add 3.5% to Respect’s 1% total, the results don’t change, so what we actually need to do is say that Respect’s influence on the campaign has brought in new voters. Let’s be optimistic and say there are 100,000 new voters because of the Postal Ballot (we scale this down to 100 as we want to keep the maths easy). So with 1,100 voters in total, the results according to bolshevik’s percentages are:

Tories: 380 voters
Labour: 280 voters
Lib Dems: 193
BNP: 94
Greens: 50
Respect: 50

In this optimistic scenario, Respect have brought in 40 new voters, the Tories bring in another 30, with 20 more for Labour, and 4 for the BNP (6 for others). Respect claims the credit!

Actually it is the increase in turnout for the Tories and Labour relative to the BNP that keeps them out, which I certainly don’t think constitutes “anti-war” votes. A drop in 0.5% for the BNP is a big chunk of their vote, while a 0.5% drop for the Tories is a much smaller chunk. The share of the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem vote increases relative to the BNP. It would be misleading to claim anti-war votes for the smaller party stopped the BNP. It was the extra Tory / Labour votes that counted.

A much safer scenario would be that the 3.5% of new voters came in to vote tactically against the BNP, and did so by adding their votes to the 4th placed party and not Respect. This keeps the BNP in 5th place. The 4th placed party does not win a seat, but even if the Tory or Lib Dem vote comes in below these (somewhat optimistic) predictions, then the 4th placed party still stop the BNP. This is all with your own figures bolshevik.

Tories: 380
Labour: 280
Lib Dems: 193
4th Party: 95 (+1 extra tactical voter from Respect)
BNP: 94
Respect: 9 (-1 tactical voter)

No one is saying you can’t make a case (anything is possible with the D’Hondt system!) only that you can’t make a very good one for the party you still seem intent on supporting. A tactical anti-racist vote should be used for a 4th placed party because it is a much better strategy. Based on reasonable predictions, the most effective tactical votes in order are as follows:

4th Placed Party (we all know which party this is, but this is not advertising)

Liberal Democrats – outside chance of getting 2 MEPs and therefore completely eliminating the prospects of a 5th placed party if a 4th placed party gets a seat

Tories – their share of the vote determines how many votes a 4th placed party will need

Labour – unlikely to match the Tories. Not a good vote because they are unlikely to see their vote slip below 27% or even (meltdown) 24% where they would be reduced to just 2 MEPs in the North West and make it easier for the BNP to get in

Votes for any party other than the 4 above actually reduce the percentage share of the vote required by the BNP because it also reduces the percentage vote of the major parties. Look at another simplified example, where a very low percentage is enough to get a 4th party elected.

Tories 33
Labour 30
Lib Dems 15
4th Party 7.51
BNP 7.49
Others 7

If the turnout for assorted other parties nearly doubles, look how the reduced share of the vote for the larger parties means that an even smaller percentage of the vote is needed to elect a 4th party.

Tories 30.84%
Labour 28.04%
Lib Dems 14.02%
4th Party 7.02%
BNP 7.00%
Others 13.08%

I don’t think we want this to happen. We should actually be doing everything we can to keep out a 4th placed party, just in case it is the BNP. But the fact remains, by voting for the 4th placed party who can beat the BNP you are still casting the most effective anti-racist vote, no matter what the share of the vote for the major parties.

I am not arguing against RESPECT, I am arguing against two simplistic and incorrect claims:
i) that RESPECT is the best anti-BNP vote (Lavalette)
ii) that because it is PR a vote for RESPECT cannot increase the chances of a BNP win.

I note that in both of your examples you have given a BNP vote significantly lower than the likely danger area which would be 8% or 9% based upon likely votes for the main parties.

I think Pete has gobe through the numbers and shown you reasoning is fallacious.

My issue is an entirely different one. I want the left to be different from the other parties by telling the truth, and not using spin. What I want to know is, how Lavallette can claim RESPECT is the best anti-BNP vote, which just seems the sort of any-old-bollocks politicians say to get votes.
He is either stupid, ill-informed or unprincipled?

As RESPECT cannot win a seat in the NW it is irresponsible to talk themselves up, and not even mention tactical voting against the BNP. It is more than irresponsible it is dishonest for Lavallette to claim respect are the best anti-BNP vote, and not even mention the Greens.
Myself I don’t live in the NW and will vote RESPECT, but it would have done great credit to RESPECT if they had recognised the reality in the NW and thrown their resources into anti-BNP work, instead of chasing 1% or 2% of the vote, which may be enough to allow Griffin to get a seat.

A guy leafleting in Branstree Avenue in Norris Green on Monday afternoon (24/5/04), was cornered by Joe Owens and his sidekick and ended up having his pathway blocked by the two in a dark blue Vauxhall estate, we saw it all as did our neighbour through our front window, the man who was leafleting on foot ran toward Sedgemoor road followed in pursuit by the two in the car, we don't know what happened to him after that. The Labour party and Liberal-Democrats have been leafleting here in the past few days, as have all the other parties. What's going on here in Liverpool?

And this is while the BNP are on their best behaviour, trying to avoid controversy. This is also why we do Searchlight together in large numbers.

There will be more of this to come after the election, because they will have less to lose. We need to be prepared. It might also be a show of anti-fascist unity if Labour, the Lib Dems, Greens and SLP all leafletted together. Admittedly, it means everything through the letter box at once and setting aside political antagonism. But for the leafletters and candidates it is a lot more secure and it is a lot less easy to bully 8 or 12 leafletters than a single person.

Timbo, “This country is economically divided, and until this is answered by a party, with a desire to level out the vastly unequal resource distributions in this society, and make it a little fairer and genuinely a little more egalitarian, all politics and all political parties in this country will remain basically irrelevant to large swathes of the population”

I was never arguing that we need a political party with a desire to level out unequal resource distributions or that if a political party was a little fairer or more egalitarian, it would become more relevant to people.

I was arguing for people to be more involved in local campaigns and working with people on things that matter to us all, like green spaces ripoffs, like debt pirates, etc. not arguing for people to join a political party. And the politics don’t have to be stuck out there on banners or leaflets anyway asking for support or votes. It’s the doing it that empowers people. It’s the act that is political. It doesn’t have to be spelt out all the time. People aren’t daft. If half the energy that goes into trying to persuade people to vote (largely unsuccessfully) for any political party, went into working with people on things that matter to them, then the bnp would really have a battle on their hands, because that’s the real territory they are taking while we worry about tactical voting.

Using your vote for a political party that will make it “a little fairer and genuinely a little more egalitarian” really seems a waste of the struggle and real suffering ordinary working class people and mainly middle class (but also working class) women went through to get the vote. Because they thought it could change society. Not a little bit. But change it for real. People cared enough to die for it. To be held down in prison and force fed, at a time when in society, you were effectively, legally, a non-person in many senses. And the way it was organised was high-handed and class based but they were brave and I respect them.

Ping up pete, because of the above, honestly, I don’t give up my vote easily.

But to answer your question, “if there is an option even slightly preferable to the BNP and New Labour, who can stop the first of these getting elected, and punish the second one for some of the most repressive and dishonest policies of the last few years, surely that is worth a vote?”

I can’t agree. The history of politics is a history of repression and dishonesty. It crosses political party boundaries. It is inherent in the system and structure of democracy we have and in the way we create and invest power. We can’t wait for someone to save us. We can’t wait for the next political party from here or europe to gallop over the hill because the way in which politics is structured, the hierarchy in front of and behind the scenes, the fact that government social policies are largely controlled by corporate business interests, the fact that the voice of the voter is irrelevant and people know it, mean the new boss is the same as the old boss. Any political party that plays the game, in order to play, has to become the game. And in practice, where the BNP have gained seats, they have been pretty useless (not that uselessness in politicians is anything new).

This is probably more controversial but I do think also that voting, as an act in itself, gives people a false sense of inclusion in politics which dulls some of the energy and anger that people need to make real change happen.

Finally it worries me that you say “I also know that if someone like you were to say you would vote, as an exception in this one instance, it would be 100 times more powerful than someone like me making the case”.
pinguppete, if someone like you were to say you would not vote, it would be 100 times more powerful than someone like me making the case.
Because if they control the gates, we have to climb the walls.

There are no easy answers. Many people know that democracy, as a reality, doesn't really exist. And if votinf changed anything, as the old saying goes, they would abolish it! Sometimes I think politics, left and right and centre, is the problem!

You are absolutely right Heather, no white knight on a charger is going to come along and make everything fair and just, not in the political world at any rate. I think part of the change comes when individuals challenge the system on very personal levels; change comes for you when things change for the better for you. I believe that part of the problem in Britain is that most people are basically apathetic, from top to bottom, and there is a lack of concern or care about what happens or doesn't happen, as long as it doesn't impact too much on us. That is a problem.

Also, we desire change, but we all seem so frightened of change too! Of course the moneyed and the powers-that-be are petrified of anything that shakes up their little 'gentleman's club', and after all, this country is a gentleman's club, run by and for a wealthy and 'superior' elite, that always thinks it knows best. Compare the rest of Western Europe to Britain. During the Thatcher years, people on the Continent called Britain a third world country when they visited, it had been run down so much. We are still in the detritus of what she did, and the divisions and old wounds she again opened up.

Many people thought Tony Blair was going to make things more genuinely democratic, but, apart from a slightly better minimum wage, he has done bugger all, and taken us into a war that virtually no one anywhere wanted. We all felt we'd been conned. So what's new?

Whichever way you involve people, and however you get ordinary people together to challenge the powers-that-be, and to help make a difference in their lives, sooner or later, or certainly in virtually every case, a party is formed, which accrues a name, and then has an agenda, a hierarchy, a leader, and a specific set of goals. Once in power, those at the top, in almost every case, are bitten by the power bug, and perhaps the fact they can escape the rat race by making piles of money and a nice house in country and whacking great personal pension plan, and so on. It becomes do as I say, and not do as I do. I could also come to organised religion in Britain as well here too. How much injustice has happened throughout Britain's modern period, over the last 200 years or so? Well, read a few history books, the injustice never seems to end! Where were the concerned, the do-gooders, the good Christian churchmen, the Church of England? Where are they now, and during the Thatcher years? Nowhere in sight, and highly conspicuous by their absence and their lack of even mild criticism. So many of them were riding on the crest of a wave, and their religion was an excuse, even a reason, not to give a flying one.

The creation of an underclass in the last 30-40 years has happened for many reasons. Of course there are personal reasons involved, but the major reasons for poverty in a very very wealthy country has been because government does not care, and in the case of the Tories during Thatcher, they actively created poverty through the abandonment of a minimum wage, the further divisions of 'haves' and 'have-nots', and the greed motive. We live in a very different society now because of this. I am extremely cynical, and do not trust easily, whatever shade of politics someone may be, or whatever silky promises they might caress us all with; we've heard them all before, we've all been seduced, got screwed, and few of us even got a kiss out of it! I am weary of it all, and I am wuite highly politicised, so what someone who doesn't really know, or hasn't the time or inclination to think about thinks, is probably even worse.

There are no easy answers; only more questions. But I believe the first thing to tackle, talk about, write about and debate, is the economic injustice, that allows some to take all the cream, when they already have enough anyway, and allows other to waste away in poverty, when they are in desperate need. The whole system hinges on this insanity; that someone like the Queen with a private fortune of hundreds of millions should get and demand even more, whilst a poor family who are living in want, can't find enougnh money or work to live adequately and satisfactorily for a modern first world country. That is the insanity of the whole world, the big lie that no one questions. Why should some rich person go on to have and make even more? Why do we allow it? When we challenge them, and their hypocrisy and their double standards and their thinly veiled prejudices and bigotry, we might also hold out for something better ourselves. Why can't a working class person get a better job, move on and have a nice house in the country? Why is it always some posh person whose got everything anyway? It is challenging that assumption, on a very personal basis, and on more general and wider level, that all the injustices of the world begin to shudder and crumble.

We should challenge the notion that rich people should be allowed to get away with paying less tax, and that wives of rich men should get high paid jobs in charities, when the real reason for all charity should be, and nothing else, about redistributing wealth from the haves to the have-nots; anything less than this is not really charity. We have to challenge, as individuals, the notion of class superiority, and hold out for better lives, and make our worlds more egalitarian. Challenge them when they expect to saunter into a high paying job, and ask yourself why you can't have a better job instead of some rich kid who had everything handed on a plate?

Challenge the hypocrisy of this, that wealth goes to wealth, and you challenge the whole system everywhere, and in your own life. Why should millionaires and billionaires pay less tax? Why should the Queen, or any other rich person, get anymore than what they have already got? Surely there are more deserving cases? I can think of millions! Question their hypocrisy, their bigotry, their arrogance, and their accepted notions, and hold out for a better life for yourself.

It depends on what you believe a better life is. People taking sickies from work is rising so Tesco bring in a policy of three days sickness unpaid. If you bring a sicknote in, you can’t get your money backdated. It is corporate bullying in a company that’s doing very nicely in terms of profit, and it doesn’t address the problem. Which is, why don’t people want to work?

Rather than ask yourself why you can’t have a better job instead of some rich kid, ask why we’re all being worked to death in the first place and why loads of people take as much time out of work as they can get away with. I don’t want a nice house in the country or a big car. I don’t want to be the Queen of anything. I don’t want the politics of envy. I don’t want the price of my car and my house to be the loss of more green space, feeding society’s consumer machine endlessly until the wheel stops because there is nothing left to ruin.

I want to live in a world where people create for themselves and for other people depending on what is needed. I think that this would result in a world which is not based on over-consumption, greed and profit and teetering on the ecological brink (although I believe the argument now in the papers is that nuclear power is the new must-have to stop global warming.. )

Also, charity assumes a relationship of power and powerlessness between people, of haves and have-nots (and in the process, acts as a sticky plaster for the state). There wouldn’t be a place for charity in a society where people were valued equally. Everyone has something to give and to receive.

People don’t need telling. They live politics whether they realise it or not. I don't think people are basically apathetic. Thats not the impression I've had when I've been talking with people on the street. I think many people feel politics is something that happens outside of you which you are powerless to change, which isn't apathy. but the fight isn’t someplace else, its here, in your life every day and you can’t change it via the ballot box.

maybe we should get off indymedia and take this discussion onto enrager or urban75 or somewhere?

The SLP have been out and about leafleting in during the course of the last few days in Norris Green. I don't know where the Searchlight/UNITE people have been posting their newspaper. The on the door dialogue is healthy and it's great to come across people I know very well, a cleaner at the college I worked at who remembers me, another young woman who was talking to me when I got police harrassment in April 2002 in campaigning against COBALT/LHT stock transfer. There has been no antagonism towards the Socialist Labour Party or any of our leafletters in Norris Green at all from the ordinary voters. We only had hostility from a friend of Labour party supporter, very middle class, very New Labour. In fact there's been a great deal of verbal support to one of their own who shares their feelings of betrayal and anger at the three main parties who've all had councillors elected to the area since demolition was announced and who've not spoken up for tenants in particular.

The Labour Party has on their leaflet the home owner who is responsible for calling for the demolition of the Boot type housing in Norris Green, an own goal I hope and believe. In fact if we get the voting support of the 500+ remaining families on the Boot type housing area, a sixth of the entire area we should get a substantial number of votes, here's hoping we beat the BNP at the very least. People out there want someone, something to believe in. Our leaflet isn't glossy or colourful It's plain and simply honest, it's very much 'from the people to the people' taking what they tell us and sharing it with the rest of the community. For definite people on the Boot estate commonly agree that the empty houses are being burnt out by people paid to do it, otherwise why to they always burn the end block of houses with at least two other houses inbetween any 'resistant' tenants, because if they burnt the next house and it went up and killed the people next door, it would blow out this conspiracy into the open. For sure it's not the kids who are burning houses through to the roof (it happens right across Liverpool from Old Swan (in 1999) to Gillmoss, Croxteth, Dovecot and elsewhere, it's done by people who know what they're doing, it's designed to terrorise out the the 'resistant' tenants who don't want to leave or are holding out for the best deal they can get that might be simply a house in an area that want to live in.

The BNP's full colour glossy leaflet doesn't say much, it scapegoats asylum seekers/spongers/refugees suggesting they get funds while there is a lack of funds for Norris Green, it's simply not as in touch with the community as our leaflet is, and the three BNPers have actually benefitted directly from my housing activism as all three the 2003 Liverpool BNP candidates in live in the Sedgemoor Estate Action area which I was directly involved in helping to get for Norris Green, how ironic. The only example of a BNP supporter we met, had a leaflet in his window I said just compare my record as a community activist with the BNP candidate, I've a good record for helping this community without even being a councillor.

We've decided we need to continue this dialogue all year not just at election time, and I feel personally that it is really appreciated by those we spent maybe 10, 15, 20 minutes or even longer time with. This is how you change things not by anonymous leafleting without dialogue. Many people have complained about the £285 million pound 'third grace' the 'cloud' building claiming the money could be better spent, also people are rapidly waking up to the concentration of resources into Liverpool City Centre at the expense of working class communities on the fringes.

Good work by Kai getting out on the doorstep.

Next bit. I can see I can't persuade you to vote heather, and I respect your right not too. I'll be voting this time and I'll carry on delivering Searchlight and other anti-racist literature.

This election I'm making a choice to vote, because if I and thousands like me don't bother, I think the consequences will be worse. I recognise your call for more discussion and if someone wants to post a link here for another site / discussion group, then lets get to it.

It's good to talk (as long as you are not paying through the nose for phone calls and the ridiculous adverts).

Just wondered why, if he represents the Boot estate so much and cares about Norris Green so much, why Kai Anderson decided to stand for the SLP in Middlesbrough in 2001? Not exactly around the corner is it?

And then in the Scottish Parliament elections in 2003?

Seems to me more of political nomad rather than committing yourself to one area. It si a charge made against the major political parties but it seems the smaller ones are not averse to this either.

And as for the BNP, as long as you keep going on about what you can do rather than getting drawn into a campaign against the racist scum, then all should be well. People are not as daft as one would believe. They can see the the stupidity of voting BNP, just need reminding that there are better options.

As long as the BNP stay out I suppose I couldn't care less where you go. Just don't go around claiming to be the saviour of Norris Green and in-touch with them when you are obviously eyeing up anywhere you can lay your hands on.
Suppose you could be accused of opportunism in much the same way the BNP are?