Skip to main content

Tory lies: AV & the BNP

"Mr Cameron...wants to highlight the potential boost to minority parties such as the British National Party."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364373/Tory-crisis-talks-threat-AV-defeat-amid-warnings-apathy-gift-Yes-vote-victory.html#ixzz1GT9cpLUL
 
PM Cameron is apparently preparing to outright-lie in his increasing desperation over potential defeat in the May 5 referendum. For the truth is the very opposite of his big lie. As I've shown in detail (See http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/02/18/two-reasons-why-libdems-might-not-benefit-from-av/ & http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-vote-no2av-to-spite-nick-clegg-meme.html & http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2011/02/correspondence-with-guidofawkes-on-av.html & http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2011/02/veres-latest-smear-ugly-no2av-rhetoric.html), AV is the worst of all possible systems for the BNP. Which is presumably why the BNP are vigorously and paranoidly opposing it...
William Hague has already pioneered the big lie that AV will help the BNP: See http://rupertsread.blogspot.com/2011/02/hagues-rubbish-arguments-against-av.html . Hague's position in British politics is increasingly vulnerable: one of the reasons why he may have to go as Foreign Secretary is because of his bizarre lie a fortnight ago that Gaddafi was flying to Venezuala, which was clearly calculated simply to smear Chavez. Does Cameron really want to start looking as bad and frequent a liar as Hague?
 
Cameron would be well-advised not to try to use the BNP card against AV. It will haunt him, if he does. For, once more: the truth is that AV, being a system in which voters can gang up on unpopular Parties, will help ensure that the BNP never gets elected to Westminster - and moreover, if introduced in local government elections, would lead to the defeat of virtually all their Councillors.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reasonable manners, in the blogosphere

Dear readers of Rupert's Read; One thing I am pleased about about this blog is that when we have had debates or disagreements here, they have virtually always been good-tempered. Because the norm out there in the blogosphere is often not like that. Take 'Comment is Free', for example, on the Guardian Unlimited site: the level of debate on CIF is pretty awful, frankly, in terms of civility. It is a very unpleasant place to take part in any debate, generally, unless perhaps (as most commenters do) one hides behind the veil of anonymity (which 'ain't allowed' here). And the truth is, in case any fellow commenters reading this don't realise it, that there are many many people who get put off even reading (let alone posting to) CIF because of the volume of plain nasty comments that they risk getting, when they do. I am slightly singling out CIF here, because I believe that this is actually one of the worst places on the blogosphere in terms of this kind of ...
15 comments
Read more

Medialens under the lens, over Syria and Libya: Becoming the new Dave Sparts?

I have long been an active supporter of Medialens ( http://www.medialens.org/ ). Like many others, I have supported them with money, time, tips, and I have been proud to have done so. For they have done very important groundbreaking work over the years challenging the inanities and distortions of the 'mainstream' media. They have for example written important critiques of mainstream media coverage of dangerous climate change, of Iraq Body Count, of the corporate nature of most of our media, and much more besides. They have held the corporate media to account time and again. They ought to be saluted for all of that. It is therefore with a sense of deep regret (as well as of some foreboding) that I have finally to write to address the ways in which, lately, some of the wheels seem to be coming off their wagon. An early warning sign perhaps was their long-running spat with George Monbiot, over the Rwandan genocide and the terrible atr...
16 comments
Read more