Guys, guys, i am not a BNP supporter, in fact i think they are retarded and backwards. However of all the parties outside the top 3 (who are all ridiculous in their own rights), the BNP were the single party who were gaining votes the fastest, as well as having policies far removed from what Labour/Tories/Libs stood for. Trust me, i have researched them and they are nut-balls, however this was a tactical vote and i think it will continue to bloody the noses of the idiot top 3 parties until they pull their fingures out of their a$$es. Mine (and everyone else's) tactical votes would not have had the same effect if we'd all voted for the other loser groups (Green party, UKIP, etc) since a) they are not as radical as the BNP and so will not gain as much media coverage as them (and let's face it, the tabloids pretty much dictate what goes on in this country at the mo, outside of European matters), and b) because of this reason, no-one will take much notice if they grew in popularity as quickly as the BNP.
Note though that if it came to a straight fight between the BNP and another party for control of this country, i would always vote the other party.... unless it was a far-left wing group like the Communists!
I think it's more daft not to vote at all since you influence nothing; atleast my way moves towards some kind of resolution or result. However the whole idea of democracy is freedom of choice, so neither of us is really 'wrong'.
No. It's both utterly ludicrous and dangerous to give your vote to an institutionally racist and discriminatory party merely on the basis of tactical voting. Every vote the BNP attain, regardless of why they get it, helps to legitimise them as a proper political party in the general public's eyes, instead of the 'one issue' party exploiting peoples' instinctual prejudices that they actually are. It's in hard times that the fascists rise, and they're gaining enough votes as it is, thanks to the Left failing us over the last decade and a recession marching on. A 'no vote' maintains the status quo, whilst a vote for the BNP, whatever your ulterior motive for doing so, is putting power and momentum in their hands. It's not as easy as supporting them one minute, and then pulling that support the next; political momentum is a powerful force and not easily predicted.
If I ever indulge in tactical voting (it certainly can be worthwhile) I'll probably go for one of the comparatively harmless parties like the Greens, or the Monster Raving Loony party. But the BNP? Goddamn.
Originally Posted by Marko Each to their own, however if you don't like the party in power how is keeping the "status quo" going to make things better?
BTW, i plan to vote Tories in the General election as they have the best chance of getting Labour out, which i want badly.
I edited in a sentence to make my point clearer;
"It's not as easy as supporting them one minute, and then pulling that support the next; political momentum is a powerful force and not easily predicted."
I completely understand that you don't support what the BNP represent, and your motive is that of tactical voting, not thinly veiled Nazism. I hope that was clear from my post.
Keeping the status quo makes nothing better, of course, but the disagreement between you and Boothman seems to be which is the worse thing to do; I see a no vote the lesser of two evils when the alternative is a vote for the BNP. With our political spectrum the way it is (i.e. no strong prospects out there, all parties fairly awful) we're reduced to damage control, and making sure the best of a bad lot are in power.
It's not the idea of tactical voting that I disagree with you on - I think it's more worthwhile to vote tactically than not vote at all - merely the fact it was the BNP which gained the advantage because of less evil parties' failings. But as you say, each to their own.