It's mainly media and legal restrictions.....laws such as 'protected characteristics', which weren't there in generations past....it restricts what parties can actually advocate for. You may not like the arguments, but you can't also say that's democratic. These laws and requirements didn't exist before Blair.

The funding for these parties are also attacked. People have had their bank accounts withdrawn. They have been sacked from their jobs, members lists have been doxxed. I'm not sure how you can make the argument that this is somehow not a manufactured political landscape.

The media control how their arguments are presented and the reality that they aren't allowed to put their arguments to the people in the same way the 'centre left' or 'centre right' are.

You want evidence?

In France the dissident right and left have a far stronger presence in politics and that's down to being allowed to actually pitch their ideas with more freedom. These parties aren't being hammered economically, their people aren't being sacked. It's a massive difference.

Also, in the UK we have Farage, who essentially didn't allow previous dissident right members from joining Ukip.....Mainly down to media pressure and he soaked up all their votes.....Voting for Farage's parties were deemed acceptable whereas it was a risk to join or vote for say, the BNP.

You see, I have no issues with you making the case above....But the 'your politics aren't popular' arguments always seems to come without the acknowledgement that there is nothing like a level playing field.

Provide a level playing field and then once your 'centre left' or 'centre right' party wins elections then what you say here carries far more weight.....and I would have no problem with it within the Democratic system....as people should get what they vote for.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Nov 2022 1.15pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Prior to Blair the demographic situation in the country was nothing like it is now. Powell was popular back in the sixties and seventies but the establishment booted him...but as for how the boomers voted back in those times and their willingness to put their faith in all that egalitarianism they were sold....well, they can explain it to their grandchildren.

There was less censorship and persecution before Blair, I agree with you. We lived through those times. However, this isn't the same thing as saying it was a level playing field.

However, because of the freer environment dissident groups had more support than they had now, and that's even within the environment where the media were still gate keeping their pitches from the masses....with basically outright condemnation whenever they were mentioned.

Again, if you are going to refer to 'popularity' you have to also recognise if the arguments have been allowed to be made on a level playing field to your 'centre left', 'centre right'.

That's illegal, who was doing that?

Antifa are essentially an operating group, along with BLM for the Democratic party.....it's why that you essentially don't hear much about them now.

They haven't gone away and they weren't locked up for their 18 months of rioting and violence either.

However, in terms of saying dissident groups shouldn't be allowed a voice. Well, I completely disagree with that, whether regardless of left or right, capitalist or communist.

While I agree, that violence shouldn't be allowed I don't agree with the idea that the marketplace of ideas should be restricted to what you deem acceptable.

Edited by Stirlingsays (19 Nov 2022 3.55pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I think you are either very confused or wilfully misrepresenting the situation. Many things, like votes for women, didn't exist before the law changed under a prime minister! Those "protected characteristics" you complain about are all part of a general evolution of the law. In this case the Equality Act 2010.

Nothing at all stops you, or anyone else, from campaigning to reverse any law. You are completely free to pitch whatever ideas you like. What you cannot do, is break a law. That really is democracy.

Those who ignore the law will always attract the attention of the authorities and must expect that steps be taken to restrain their ability to do so. Organisations that encourage law breaking particularly so.

Farage didn't break the law. He might have disliked some aspects, and argued for their reversal, but he stayed on the right side. That's all that's needed, whether in the UK or in France. The BNP, and their "dissident" brothers, appear not to understand that.

There is a completely level playing field for those who play by the rules.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I don't think the police have any views on a cause. Individual officers might do personally but that won't impact on their professional duty to uphold the law.

I have no time for Extinction Rebellion, or indeed for any group of activists who believe their opinions entitle them to disrupt the lives of others. However, we permit peaceful protest and the problem the police must have is deciding where the line between that and causing disruption lies in a legal sense. It might look obvious to us, and I suspect to most of the officers involved, but they cannot risk stepping over a legal line and risking bad publicity or compensation awards. The solution lies in changing the law and drawing the lines more clearly and in the interests of most of us, and not those who protest.

According to the poster who most frequently refers to the dissident right on here, and considers himself a member, it means anyone at all to the right of mainstream Conservative thinking. Which is a very broad church, but certainly includes the far right. I see it being used as a cloak to cover up some views now generally regarded as unacceptable, by using a new, neutral sounding name and then associating it with others not so extreme.

It's political marketing. Few would vote for the British Marxist Party, or the National Socialist Party of Great Britain, but they might for The Left Foot Forward, or The Dissident Alternative.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

[Tweet Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Nov 2022 3.56pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I support an independent inquiry.

[Tweet Link]

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)