No, working-class people have more obvious reason to be dissatisfied with the politics of the major parties than do middle-class people. The [edit: silly party] prey upon this dissatisfaction, offering false diagnoses concerning immigrants, asylum seekers, political correctness, etc., etc., in ways that can seem more immediate to those living on a housing estate than in a cushy Islington house.

Also, if one is a socialist, it is the views and interests of the working classes that count, hence why this is an issue. Certainly it's a big one for those involved in political action on the left, realising that it's not enough simply to dismiss members of the working classes who are drawn to the [edit: silly party] as bigots and racists, etc., from a position of comfortable middle-class superiority.

From the other place, a diplomatic, honest, reasoned and reasonable comment in reply to one of mine from a chap who probably knows a bit about the contemporary music scene:

"Message 19 - posted by howardskempton (U7258870) , Feb 25, 2007

I am happy to take the opportunity to answer your question, even though I risk being teased for being too serious amidst the "office banter" of the message boards.

I think there is less charlatanry and fraud than we imagine. There is much in the field of experimental work (and this would include conceptual art) that is half-baked and pretentious and there is much in the long-established tradition that is imitative and seeking merely to impress. I doubt whether deception is rife, on either side.

The programme of this organisation is not divided tidily into 90% nice and 10% nasty, but in fact is all logically tied together. What you approved of concerning their arts policy is all of a piece with the brutal racism which lies behind all of their policies. "Traditional British values" are what produced a violently repressive empire as well as (for the few) a green and pleasant land.

So much for "slurs and lies".

No I don't disagree with that.

What I ask myself is whether Simon was taken in by the superficially innocuous but actually pernicious aspects of the [edit: silly party] programme, in which case his contention that people who are "taken in" by Joyce or Mallarmé or Boulez has to be seen in the context of someone who himself isn't capable of looking behind the surface of political propaganda, or he really believes that 90% of that manifesto is perfectly respectable, in which case his original protestations that it was a jolly little wind-up take on a somewhat more sinister character.

Well I wouldn't agree, even with hindsight, that the Empire was all bad - but then, you wouldn't expect me to! For its time, it was probably as good an Empire as there could have been, given that an Empire existed at all.

But as to the manifesto, the point I originally made, which Bryn seemed to understand completely, had nothing to do with mistakes or being taken in. It's not a question of deciding whether they are "reformed" or not. It is simply a fact that, taken simply as words on paper, 90% of the [edit: silly party]'s manifesto is little different from that of most other political parties in the UK. Indeed, I expect that I would happily agree with 90% of the stated manifesto ideals of them all, including, if it's still around, the CPGB.

What one should look at, IMO, when deciding who to vote for in our democracy, is not "who do I absolutely 100% agree with" - because you probably won't find such a party (as a conservative, I certainly don't agree with ALL that the Tories say or do) but rather a] who do I agree mostly with and b] is there anything in a manifesto that I could never support, whether on moral, social or economic grounds. The latter point would rule out the [edit: silly party] for most people, including me. It would also rule out the LibDems, but probably not Labour.

I agree that it is a worrying thing to find large swathes of eminently repectable and reasonable views carefully wrapped around small, half-hidden snippets of distasteful dogma. Gone are the days when blatant extremism stands up and says "Here I am, this is what I stand for". But that has always been the way lately, on both extremes of the political spectrum. It's a product of spin, in a sense. And we must be wary of it, as it is an insidious threat to our freedoms.

Another insidious threat comes from the unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy in the EU. Again, 90% of their activities seem reasonable. But if you look deeper, and they start talking of making "anti-EU" activities a crime, then I think we should worry. The ghosts of Hitler and Stalin walk... I personally think that our freedoms have more to fear from the EU than from either of the minority extreme parties in the UK.

Could you give a source which will detail what 'anti-EU' activities are deemed to be in this context?

I'm not, of course, going to say a single word in support of genocide or to defend the indefensible, wherever or by whomsoever's hand it took place, but by "the most comprehensive genocide" in Tasmania, are you referring to the percentage of the total Tasmanian population so killed (in which case you may well be correct - I simply do not know), because in terms of sheer numbers slain, it's pretty small fry compared to the work of the three largest culprits - Hitler, Stalin and (above all) Mao, surely?

Best,

Alistair

Even if 90% of their policies did look quite reasonable/mainstream on paper, to take the [edit: silly party] at face value is crazy in the extreme (I'm sure you are not doing that, of course).