Seems a disgruntled Labour councillor wasnt to happy that the council were giving the BNP and the English Democrats a platform. So he went to the event organisers to complain, he then returned to the event room and told the two candidates that they were no longer welcome. The BNP candidate refused to move explaining that it was his right to be there. So the police were called. The police consulted with the event organisers, they then escorted Derek Adams out like a criminal.Now, I don't know a lot about the English Democrats except that I once heard one of their spokesman on the BBC one morning, and that they'd like to see an English parliament. I also know that Boaty & D have their reservations, but even they, I suspect, would agree with me that their being denied a voice during campaigns for a (cough) democratic election is quite wrong.
The English Democrats are registered with the Electoral Commission as a valid political party and fielded 107 candidates in the last election. That's more than the SNP and Plaid Cymru combined.
The BNP, of course, are more well-known, but they are also a registered party and put up 22 more candidates than the Greens. Some may find the BNP objectionable, I do myself. But, then again, the Greens turn my stomach too.
And that's the thing with 'democracy', it's a very subjective concept. Whilst I'd live life a lot happier without the likes of Caroline Lucas around, she and her collection of melon-headed loons should be allowed to have their say in a democratic system. They might be mad as a skipful of grapes, but while they are accepted for the ballot paper and there are people who wish to exercise their right to give them a vote, their only silencing should come via reasoned debate.
It's hardly surprising that it was a Labour politician who decided that these two parties are not to be heard, those with left leanings have always enjoyed a good ban/censor/massacre of those who don't share their views, after all. But the guy is hideously wrong, as are the council if they are behind the ejections as the quiet one believes.
Between them, the BNP and EDP polled just under 1.2 million votes in the 2009 Euro elections, and 629,157 in the 2010 General Election. That's a lot of democracy going on right there, whether one likes it or not.
So, where are we on this? Well, we have three parties who are all as piss poor as each other. If you want to start your own, they have already put up huge barriers to stop you doing so. If you get past those hurdles, they laugh at your support. If you endure that and gain support, they get tetchy and throw you out of political meetings in case you gain any more.
I don't recognise anything free or democratic about that, quite honestly.
We are now living in a state which pretends to be democratic, until some wish to disagree with ensconced parties who have decided there are things which are not open to disagreement ... like voting for anyone except them, for example.
14 comments:
It's all part of social engineering Dick. The only schools we have left who offer our children a quality and diverse education are the private ones. Quietly state schools are brainwashing our children, in many ways without parental knowledge.
The future is worrying.
Having just watched The Rise of Evil with Robert Carlyle as Hitler l'm beginning to think the Rise of the Fourth Reich is well on it's way judging by this crowd in Oldham.
It's shocking behaviour, but only to be expected from the Labour party.
The English Democrats were he only party that bothered to knock at my door prior to the General election.
I asked what their policy was on amending the smoking ban and was told that they would.
They got my vote and quite a few others in my area.
Unfortunately I am in one of the Tories safest seats.
The English Dems plus UKIP plus the BNP got as many votes together as the Labour party.
A pity that these 3 parties can not find a respectable middle ground and join together.
What a lovely idea, witch! After all, it is in the nature of politicians to be ultra-malleable. If all these parties made a few 'adjustments', they could easily combine.
The whole incident seems to be less than credible, though, doesn't it? There must be something missing. None of it makes any sense. Was the 'meeting' (or whatever) an invitational meeting? We do not know. In order to make a judgement, we need to know more.
I have just watched the video from The quiet Man site (I did not want to watch it while I was posting before because I would have lost the post).
There didn't seem to be any obvious danger of physical confrontation. Why were the police there? Their decisive action must have had some definite legal basis. Perhaps the meeting was specifically organised as a 'closed' discussion between certain individuals and the BNP and EDP 'invaded' it.
the only important point is that pointed out by someone somewhere (I forget where) that Local Authorities are not allowed to take sides. Also, the question arises as to who paid for the hire of the room.
The English Democrat mayor of Doncaster is a good lad. OFSTED, Audit Commission et bloody cetera are right up his arse and he's still gigging.
I am a BNP member and stood in the last general election. It looks to me like only about half all the candidates in the Oldham election were invited to this meeting and that Derek Adams walked in uninvited, which strictly speaking he should not have done.
Whichever 'side' you're on this latest example further adds to the insurmountable problems with democracy.
As an anarchist I'm constantly answering 'but how would x work under anarchy?' Type questions. To most people having never been exposed to anarchist ideas these problems seem never ending and insurmountable. I would argue that if democracy or any form of coercive collectivism (the state) were not the status quo and I proposed it the idea of democracy would be met with more genuinely insurmountable questions -
Who would be allowed to stand/vote? who would decide that? Who would hire the hall? How would that be fair? Should it be fair? What is fair? Should democracy be direct, representative, or delegated? Should participation be compulsory? Would that lead to mob rule? Should participation be explicitly limited or de facto discouraged to preserve technocratic elitist rule?
Whatever answers come up the fact cannot be escaped that democracy of any description is coercive and therefore is unescapably ethically corrupt. Almost every problem you care to mention can be traced back to this central germ. Democracy is a sham, a deceit. As George Carlin once said 'no matter who you vote for the government always gets in.'
Yo Dickie,
Its no surprise is it really,its hard to have any sympathy mind,its not as if the BNP are strangers to using a bit of muscle and intimidation to get their points of view across,and lets face it if the BNP had any power anyone they didn`t like,which is a lot of people, would be getting more than being asked to leave a political love in....Nazi bastards!...;)
There is no democracy. We're run by thiefs and liars, and there's not much we can do about it.
Jon Cruddas MP wrote in the New Statesman that there should be an English Labour Party (there is already a Scottish one), but he doesn't have the gumption to start one.
There is unlikely to be an English Labour Party as Labour is pathologically anti-English. Mind you, so are the Tories, Lib dems and the BNP.
Anything British is anti-English.
Sorry, but this is over-stating the position: there is no general right in the UK for election candidates to gatecrash events.
It is for the event organisers to decide. If they generally invite all candidates (as might have happened here before the full range of nuttier candidates was known) then later change their mind and ask some candidates to leave, adverse political comment can be made but this is still lawful.
Any candidate can organise his/her own event and platform, assuming they can get property owners to let accommodation to them and meet the expenses limits, otherwise they can set up a soap-box platform in a public place (where disorder does not ensue) or send out election address leaflets.
Heckling and barracking at events is quite lawful – electoral law is relaxed about this and recognises the right to robust/rumbustuous political debate. In the debate comments about personal qualities of other candidates must be truthful, though this does not apply to trivial inaccuracies or comments about their past or future political stance (sometimes it may take a couple of High Court judges to sort out the personal from the political!).
With best wishes to all the electors of Oldham East and Saddleworth...
@Dick the Prick.
The Mayor of Doncaster is Peter Davies who is the father of DP's blog mascot Philip Davies.
No' a lo' of people know tha'.
Post a Comment