I think there are questions to be asked about what percentage turnout is required to validate an election result. There are examples out there of countries which would declare a result void should turnout fail to reach an acceptable level. It may be a bad idea in some respects, but it would at least encourage the electees to work a little harder to represent the interests of the people, and might increase people's perception that their vote matters.

:d48wvobt

I was a little surprised. I'm going to have to look into the matter at some point, when I've got enough spare time and see where this perception comes from. I can't help feeling it must stem from somewhere, but until I know more I will be putting this matter in the "Opinion Pending" file.

It probably says more about the level of ill-informed opinion I gave previously than anything else to be honest. I'm a little ashamed of myself.

:d48wvobt

I took the time to peruse the pamphlet that arrived on my doormat a couple of weeks ago. I was not impressed.

:d48wvobt

Perhaps, but I think you might give too little. Most of them are not [i:d48wvobt[u:d48wvobtthat[/u:d48wvobt[/i:d48wvobt stupid.

One thing i dont get.

UKIP have a lot of similar ideas/policies that that the BNP has but no-one has carried on that they came second in the vote?

I voted to watch the T.V. best option in my opinion.

The difference being what lies beneath the surface. If you delve further into the BNP policies you'll see.

They are a party founded almost entirely on the principal that Britain should not be in the EU. That is very different from the raison d'etre of the BNP. I will do you the favour of assuming you don't need me to explain that difference. There are some clues above.

I don't like single interest parties, and I don't personally agree with UKIP's stance on their issue, but it is a genuine political issue and not quite such a radical politacal hard line of the pseudo-nazi party.

In short, and to provide further clues, I would be prepared to live in a country that was not part of the EU, but not in one which was repatriating it's citizens on the basis of skin colour.

Can you enlighten us?

no. let him do his own research. I can't be ar5ed.

Did you speak to a lot of BNP supporters at the various Bernard Manning concerts you attended?

They go a little further than that, in fact the original comment wasn't far short of being correct, they are remarkably similar to the BNP on many of their policies as are the English Democrats - they just smile nicer and wear tailored suits rather than ones from George.

For instance, along with the predominant need to remove our country from the EU comes the attached clampdown on immigration that all three parties mention in their manifestos, the two nicely suited ones don't go so far as to say "get rid of the eastern europeans from our shores" but they do intimate that that is the primary reason for withdrawing from the EU, UKIP for instance mentioned "strict enforcement" of border controls and immediate repatriation of illegal immigrants rather than comply with EU asylum laws.

They (UKIP and ED) don't mention "send the darkies home" anywhere but there is an underlying meaning and liberal use of the words "Indigenous English" to several parts of their manifestos.

Its polite racism.

I couldnt see anyone. My hood had slipped and the eyes were at the back.

I've actually misread Ferrinos post. I somehow missed the reference to UKIP.

He's got a point.

Nor can I

all i know is my great grandad got shot at to earn me a Vote so i'll damm well use it!

Police were a lot tougher in those days.

He should have moved out of south leeds.

Please stay on Topic.

Small t, its not a chocolate bar.

No he didn't.

how does F off sound?

Very good example of revisionism. Most people fought in WW2 because they were conscripted and had no choice - not for any grand notion of defending freedom.

Which is interesting relative to Nick Griffin's claims in the BNP broadcast that was clearly aimed at semi senile pensioners claiming that war graves had British names on because it was British that did the bulk of the fighting liberating Europe.

Leaving aside the small contributions made by Uncles Sam and Joe, most of the 'British' troops weren't British - they were Poles, Czechs, French, Greeks etc as well as white commonwealth troops and principally nasty darkie types who'd actually volunteered to fight for the mother country. The only campaigns where the majority of troops under British command were British were the 1940 defeats in Norway and France - in every campaign after that Johnny Foreigner from occupied territories, colonial types and swarthy looking volunteers made up the bulk of the troops.

Whilst loathe to come across as sympathetic to the odious BNP cretin. What is democratic about him being attacked in London this morning by a bunch of "unwashed tax dodgers" (Couldn't think of any other way to describe them)? Aren't they dragging themselves down to his level or am I missing something here?

Heard some facts and figures the other night on the very subject, can't remember what they were as I was only half listening but the gist of it was that the rush to volunteer at the start of WW2 was not overwhelming at all hence the need a little later for conscription - the cause being placed firmly on the fact that those of volunteering age had spent the last 17 or so years listening to their own fathers (the ones who came back) accounts of how stupid they were to rush to volunteer in the 14/18 conflict.

I too have to chuckle slightly when the old "they fought for me to have a free vote" line is wheeled out, no they didn't, most of them were dragged into the army against their free will or like my own father they volunteered on the brink of being dragged in against their free will with the trade off that they had at least some small choice in what they would join.

3 Years actually

what policy do BNP actually have?