Yup

One of the APP's target MP's lost their seat - 3 didn't.

Hardly a rininging endorsement

Your pissed-off-ness is transparent! This IS a very ringing endorsement of the APPs tactics. If it didn't wind you up then you wouldn't have bothered posting. ;-)

Next time the APP will have more candidates in more marginal places, so expect more of this in the future.

The tory in hungtindon had a loss of 1.9% in votes. this is despite the fact through rest of england the tories had an increase of over 5%! He actually lost votes. Once again animal abuser supporters will realise that if they support abuse they will lose significant votes. If Huntingdon had increased same amount as rest of tory vote they would have got aroun 28000 instead they got only around 26500 ... 1500 less. In marginals this would be significant. Next election hope to see more of these tactics.

"Your pissed-off-ness is transparent! This IS a very ringing endorsement of the APPs tactics. If it didn't wind you up then you wouldn't have bothered posting. ;-) "

I don't think the first poster was angry, he's just questionning how well the APP did. All you've done is comment on how you think the poster feels instead of justify your argument.

I live in the constituency where Harris was MP. I got one of the Animal Protection Party's leaflets. It was frankly a joke, and all my friends took the piss out of it (rightly so). I was shocked that the leaflet was not only about animal 'rights' and stuff, but also mentioned that Harris voted for euthanasia, and for keeping abortion legal. These are good things! Why did the APP pander to the right in this regard? I know of nobody that was influenced by it into not voting for him, and a couple of people who voted for him because of the leaflet.
While this is only anecdotal, I seriously doubt that their leaflets made any impact whatsoever on Harris' defeat. I imagine it was more a case of Ashcroft's influence in favour of the Tories, and the Lib Dems considered it a safe seat to didn't invest in it, instead getting their activists and finances into working in our neighbouring constituency: Oxford East.

I hope these animal rights people disassociate themselves from the left, or from the broad anarchist tradition anyway. As an anarchist and communist, I am no fan of Harris, and certianly not the Lib Dems. However, he happens to be one of the most progressive MP's in the House of Commons. He has voted against proposed attacks on workers' ability to organise; voted for the secularisation of politics; voted for 'civil liberties'; against irrational drug classification policies; against further attacks on migrant workers and increased border controls, etc. Fair enough, as a scientist he perhaps doesn't give enough value to animals in his decision-making, but he should hardly be the target of a campaign of supposedly radical people!

Da, you claim to be an anarchist and yet you support an MP!! LMAO.

Harris is not and never has been a scientist. He thinks he knows science but in reality he doesn't have a clue. he was just a snearing elitist idiot, I am surprised someone claiming to be an anarchist would support him. There are MPs who are far better supporters of science than he was. He is just a slimy smug twat with some dodgy claims.

I suggest you look into Russian Nihilists to understand the APP campaign against Harris. A real anarchist would have understood this.

you are showing yourself up now darling, count to ten, take a deep breath and then construct your next attack

"I don't think the first poster was angry, he's just questionning how well the APP did. All you've done is comment on how you think the poster feels instead of justify your argument."

When I said: "This IS a very ringing endorsement of the APPs tactics." I was questioning his criticism of the APP. I didn't go into any more detail as I felt it unnecessary.

The rest is me commenting on the poster's motivation, where my basic suggestion is that they have a pro-animal abuse agenda and are just trolling. Which is why I didn't go into more detail (as above) - I don't want to feed the trolls too much.

I don't know about Lembit Opik's view on vivisection, but he is pro-hunt and was part of the Middle Way group that wanted to regulate foxhunting rather than ban it outright.

Also, Evan Harris has a degree in physiology and another in Medicine and Surgery, so I would say that makes it correct to call him a scientist, even if he does support vivisection.

Regarding the leaflet about euthanasia, abortion, etc. - I don't think the APP as an organisation has views on these topics either way - they only mentioned them for tactical reason so less people would vote for Harris, since they knew Oxford has a lot of bible-bashers. In another situation they might attack an MP for having the exact opposite views if they think it would be unpopular with the constituency.