Skip to main content

Why the BNP are voting NO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cluQTDWGd4&feature=player_embedded This vid debunking #No2AV lies about #FPTP, #AV and extremism is crucial! Do watch - and then share widely...
 
This video will help you to understand why the BNP want you to vote No to AV on May 5, while Operation Black Vote want you to vote Yes. It will explain why Simon Darby, Vice-Chair of the BNP, recently said that

"We are never going to get our feet under the table under the AV system."

Please watch the video, and then forward the email to all your friends / share the link on Twitter or Facebook.

We've got just 2 weeks left now, to change our electoral system for the better - or to be shafted by the Tories, the BNP and the right-wing press, who will be the ones gloating if Britain votes NO on May 5.

Let's make it YES, instead...

 
__________________________________________________________________________________
 
<a href="http://www.yestofairervotes.org/">Vote #Yes2AV </a>  | <a href="http://www.yestofairervotes.org/">Alternative Vote</a> | <a href="http://www.yestofairervotes.org/">Yes 2 AV</a>

Comments

Mark Walmsley said…
Hi Rupert - long time follower first time commenter here...

What's the general opinion of how AV might effect the Greens, as a minority party? Has anyone tried to game out what might have happened to Caroline in Brighton and Adrian in Norwich in 2010?

All the best and keep at it here.
21 April 2011 at 21:08
Rupert said…
Thanks Mark!
Look at the Australian example: it is clear that AV benefits the Green Party. It has enabled to Aussie Greens already to climb to 10%plus in the polls (what we'd give for that!) and to win their first seat (which would have been lost, without AV). This is because IT ELIMINATES THE WASTED VOTE ARGUMENT. It would for that reason have been hugely beneficial to us in Norwich in 2010, for certain (and also in the Norwich North byelection, in which I scored 10% - that could easily have become 20%plus, under AV).
24 April 2011 at 09:21
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

Post a Comment
Read more

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...
2 comments
Read more