How East Dulwich voted on May 1st

[dc]

The results have now been published at ward level for the recent London elections.

Votes in East Dulwich ward were as follows:

Mayor:                                 GLA Member:                        London-wide list:

Labour     1936   51.6%       Labour    1378   37.0%        Labour   1343  35.8%

Tory         1006   26.8%       Tory         675    18.1%        Tory          688  18.4%

LibDem      463   12.3           LibDem    892    24.0%        LibDem     683  18.2%

Green        229   6.1%         Green      535    14.4%         Green       646  17.2%

Others       119   3.2%         Others     242    6.5%          Others      387  10.3%

[Jamma]

Have you collated all the figs into 'others' or is that how the figures were published? I'd like to know how many BNP voters there are in the area (and then hunt them down and kick them in the cunt)

[Siduhe]

The full ward data spreadsheet is here (opens in Excel), but it's not the easiest to find your way around. Open it up, find your ward and scroll right to the London Assembly Member section. The BNP is Party 2 IIRC, which would mean 77 people in the East Dulwich ward voted for them.

More data here: http://results.londonelects.org.uk/Results/DownloadResults.aspx

[Jah Lush]

That's 77 too many ignorant racist right-wing bastards living in our area.

[Pandora]

That's really interesting to see. Is there a key anywhere to which number refers to which party on the spreadsheet?

[MadWorld74]

At least we didn't have The National Front running for place as well, like they did in Lewisham.....

[Siduhe]

Nothing that easy I'm afraid. You need to go to the list of Parties (below - alphabetical order) and count down from the top, so Party 1 is Abolish the Congestion Charge and Party 2 the BNP and so on.

I did a quick cross check on the total no of votes for Party 2 in Lambeth and Southwark which talied to the total amount of votes for the BNP (4945 in total), so pretty sure this is how it works.

http://www.londonelects.org.uk/candidates/london_assembly_candidates.aspx

[MadWorld74]

That is very scarey..I can't belive that the NF and BNP have scored so highly. So they pose a real threat to us sane Londoners ever, so you reckom? They are the supposed mouthpiece of the 'white working-class people'......?

[Loz]

Slightly OT...

Before I say any more, let me just say that I think the BNP are scum.

But, I'm having trouble with the attitude of the other London Assembly members in dealing with the elected BNP member. "Won't work with him", "won't talk to him", "won't sit next to him". The unfortunate fact is that he was elected and, as much as it may upset people, he represents part of the London electorate. You can't support democracy on one hand then refuse to deal with a democratically elected person on the other. Extrapolate that idea to the extreme and you get Robert Mugabe.

Much as I despise everything about the BNP, in a democratic society they have a right to exist. You need to understand and combat *why* one in twenty people think BNP is the answer, not try and ignore the fact they voted that way.

[MadWorld74]

I am well aware thanks Loz why people vote for the BNP and the NF.

Slightly OT as it may seem to you, I am worried that their backing is increasing.

[dc]

MadWorld74 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>I am worried that their backing is increasing.

Not sure about that really. You have to remember that the last vote in 2004 was at the same time as the Euro elections. UKIP did well and obtained two seats on the Assembly - later to split, defect, rename themselves etc.

I think that much of the 2004 UKIP vote went to the Conservatives but some went to the BNP. These things are never precise but it looks like the 15% UKIP vote in Bromley and Bexley last time split 10% to the Tories and 5% to the BNP. The fact that the total percent vote of the BNP stayed almost the same (5.33% against 5.17 last time) despite there being these other votes up for grabs is interesting.

[macroban]

> That's 77 too many ignorant racist right-wing bastards living in our area.

Jah, you forgot those who couldn't work out how to use the ballot paper and those who couldn't find the polling station.

[MitchK]

Those are very disappointing figures. Now I know why we have an Iceland and a Somerfield in Lordship Lane and not a Waitrose or M&S.

[Mark]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ... Now I know why we have an Iceland and a Somerfield in Lordship Lane and not a Waitrose or M&S.

why? Can you share it with us please...

[*Bob*]

A recent survey showed that most BNP supporters do their weekly shop at Waitrose.

[Mark]

I thought that's what he was saying. Blimey, so the 77 BNP supporters round here keep the Iceland and a Somerfield going, they must be loaded. I expect they're the ones who over inflated the house prices too.

[TillieTrotter]

Loz that is the voice of reason.

I suspect its because people arent allowed to discuss their views/fears without being attacked by those "intelligent/tolerant" people like the majority of the forumers that they sort of go underground. Jah and I were discussing this recently and I had to really try to get my point across that everyone and I mean everyone needs a voice whether it's agreeable or not.

A while ago someone (cant remember and cant be bothered to backtrack) came on with a view and was immediately attacked by lots of posters. Wouldnt it be better to discuss WHY they feel like they do and possibly "educate" them to your point of view rather than closing them down and making their discontent grow and therefore sending them straight into the arms of the BNP.

This is of course my own humble opinion and I wouldnt normally get involved with this type of argument!

[annaj]

Tillie, I agree with you and with Loz's post.

However, I was on the previous thread aboyut the BNP and whilst some people did react angrily to the pro-BNP posters, there were several of us who tried very hard to engage those who expressed BNP sympathies in debate. Unfortunately, none of the handful of apparently pro-BNP posters would enter into any kind of sensible discussion or explain or clarify their views. I understand that they might have felt intimidated by the initial angry response, but in fact as I recall (I have to admit I haven't searched it either) people posting angry and abusive responses were quickly "policed" by other forumites and the debate, although one-sided, was quite reasonable.

What I'm tryng to say is, that whilst I agree with you that all views should be openly discussed and explored, in my experience it's actually quite hard to do.

So, an invitation: I oppose the BNP, but I am a reasonable and open minded person and would like to hear from anyone who supports them. I would like to undrestand and discuss your point of view in a calm and non-threatening environment. If you are a BNP supporter or sympathiser please post on this thread, so that we might all learn a little more about each other...

[Brendan]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Those are very disappointing figures. Now I know

> why we have an Iceland and a Somerfield in

> Lordship Lane and not a Waitrose or M&S.

I know I know. It is so so depressing that there aren?t enough people around who are enlightened enough to do things like, vote properly and earn decent money.

You should hear some of the accents your ears get abused by when you walk down Lordship Lane.

[pepperkinski]

The BNP incites racial hatred no matter what double-speak they employ. They're racist. Why do they need to voice that? I don't understand

[Keef]

MitchK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Those are very disappointing figures. Now I know

> why we have an Iceland and a Somerfield in

> Lordship Lane and not a Waitrose or M&S.

I suspect this was meant as a flaming post, but if not, it's as offensive in it's thinly veiled suggestion as your average BNP voter would be.

Anyway, what Tillie said! (followed by what anna said).

[annaj]

Pepperkinski, because everyone is entitled to a voice.

And because an increasing number of people support them and vote for them. Ignoring them won't overcome that, it will only allow the organisation to slowly gather support, but talking to people and trying to understand their thinking might.

[Keef]

annaj Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ignoring them won't overcome that, it will only allow the organisation to slowly gather support

It also encourages a siege mentality, which makes them feel almost like a special little gang.

Letting them speak is the only way to feed them the rope with which they will eventually hang themselves, because they are basically thick! Ignoring them makes them feel indignant and more likely to "carry on the fight".

[annaj]

Well said Keef.

Although, calling them all "thick" does somewhat undermine my invitation to a calm and reasoned debate ;-)

[Keef]

Er, oh yeah :-$