Thread: BNP massively defeated at local level

Originally Posted by simonbennett

Haha, nice effort. No, I fell out with him the moment he betrayed the members, the party, both Peter and I and his own self respect by ignoring the problem he was aware of in order to further his own position. I loathe people of that nature. Destroying two years of effort and video on the website did kind of seal it though.

As someone who appears to be a senior member yourself, may I ask your real name?

I would not describe myself as a senior member as I only got involved in 2009 but I am a party official.

I suppose I was one of the first to have direct internal information about a change over regarding your position.

I am not involved with head office and have no real intention to get involved. You did a great job with the website and I have no intention of taking sides or influencing others.

I won’t discuss anything internal but that is not hard for me as I have little interest or knowledge beyond my own local area.

Originally Posted by david H

Apparently, yesterday's defeat gives us a \"window of opportunity\"! If you want a laugh get it from our leader himself -

A Message from Nick Griffin BNP MEP

I can't believe it: there is no begging letter attached!

No begging letter but a hint at asking for more money at the end lol

what a joke!

Originally Posted by philjuliard

I think it's the latter and more ridiculous spin from a leader who only ever goes for propaganda.

It's true that with a PR system, the Party has a better chance of returning an MP. But the sudden liking for PR from the party, when other parties who have also suffered take it on the chin, is fodder for critics.

More spin and propaganda, rather than an incisive comment.

THAT will always be the problem.

True. BNP needs a proper organised structure, rather than a top down Griffinite dictatorship. Organisation, which reacts to peoples concerns and local issue effectively, which attracts professional staff and keeps them (e.g. SB) and which aims to make progress week-by-week rather than once in a blue moon when Chairman Nick snaps his fingers.

Nick does all the talking, and when questioned one finds little substance to back up his claims (such as the out-of-date economic stuff). Nick fires the "good news" like bait for the hungry fish with one hand, and fires the blanks for the journos to publish in the other.

I can already hear Dowson saying that reforming our election machine will need MASSIVE investment and donations from them members. What a ....

Originally Posted by Raven

Wow, as a South Bham committee member I thank you for those words (and how did you know about the Black Horse?). I agree we have always been at the front when someone has needed us especially in West Mids region (Stoke, Nuneaton etc) and places like London. The number of activists has dropped recently relying on the same people (such as myself). Some of us have spoke today and are goig to take a back seat, 1 couple is leaving the area altogether. Birmingham will reorganise later.

I used to help out a little with South Birmingham, and East Birmingham. Then I met Collet, after which I came to the conclusion that Searchlight were correct in their analysis of the BNP leadership. Shortly after Sadie Graham attempted to get these problems addressed and I supported her in that. Unfortunately she did a poor job, thanks mainly to her misguided loyalty to Nicholas, and most of the BNP weren't ready to accept that Griffin was leading them up a blind alley so Griff survived. Now that is a case of QED.

Before I begin I should first give some background, first post, and all that, but I was wandering around the internet, looking up election stories, and stumbled across this thread, and couldn't resist replying to some of the quotes here.

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP

Don't give me that, you've been talking about taking Dagenham Council for five years and you're getting murdered, by Labour for Christs sake, not some ultra popular bandwagon. All the pathetic "gains" of Griffin's BNP are being wiped. The truth is there for all to see, Nicholas has spazed the last ten years of the radical right, it's inarguable now.

Gains?

Everyone has heard about these BNP gains, over the years, it's a nice little story for the media, during duller political moments, to allow them to rant about "rising tides of fascism" etc., but any political pundit will tell you, since Nick Griffins election to head of the party, in 1999, there have virtually been no gains.

In 2001, in his first general election, from 33 seats the party amassed 47,129 votes, at an average of 1,428 votes per seat, in 2010, these amazing gains had lead to 563,743 votes, from 325 seats, at 1,734 votes per seat.

Ok, I guess we can call that a gain, of sorts, but a gain of an average 300 votes a seat, over 10 years, would not register as a gain in the eyes of most people, not when we consider it would take around 500 years, at that rate of growth, to actually win a seat.

All the BNP has done, over that period of time is to increase the number of candidates standing each time, to leave a higher figure in the final column, and to make it appear as though there has been massive growth.

Originally Posted by thebev

It should be pointed out that we more than doubled our vote, it's not good enough, but its a start!

See my answer above, that more than doubling of your vote has only occurred because you have stood more candidates, in terms of average votes per seat you're votes have increased by about 100 votes per seat, over the last 5 years, which is actually a slow down of growth, from the previous 5 years.

Originally Posted by IvanNolabour

I think our tactics were bad for this election campaign.

Have they ever been good for any election?

I mean I know it's fashionable to blame the media, the opposition, the electorate, and everything else, every party always does, but the lions share of the blame always has to rest with the party, whichever party you're talking about, and as the BNP have never produced a single decent nationwide general election result you have to conclude they've never run a campaign with anything but bad tactics.

Every dog has it's day, even Respect, and the Greens have managed to return an MP, at least once, so even with the most horrible of policies it's possible to produce some sort of result, but after 28 years the BNP has never managed to truly threaten to win a seat.

I think when you compare the BNP to UKIP, that is ten years younger, but perhaps closest to the party ideologically, of any of the other parties, you have to say that even the relatively unsuccessful UKIP, who some question the continued viability of, and ask should they call it a day, have somewhat eclipsed the efforts of the BNP, and again you have to cite bad tactics, and inadequate leadership as being at least partially responsible.

I watched the BNP party political broadcast, and it was frankly appalling.

Here was a man, to the average viewer, who was a little on the portly side, unattractive, lacking in charisma, and appeal, and who carries a lot of damaging political baggage, stuck behind an old desk, as though he was making a PPB, in the 1960's (I half expected it to turn black and white, and grainy at any moment), waffling on, in a drab, monotone voice, in front of a picture of a man who would have voted against him, Winston Churchill (Why is the BNP trying to cash in on Churchill, the 100 Greatest Britons was broadcast 8 years ago now!), before cutting to rather wooden people, reading rather poorly scripted lines, with no personality, and no panache.

If I wanted to make the worlds worst ever PPB I think I would have aimed for something like that.

This is 2010, we've just had Obama (a terrible politician, but a roaring success at the ballot box), and the word "Change" is the buzz word.

Look at the Liberals, look at the Conservatives, look how they tried to mimic the Obama campaign, look how they went for youth, and dynamism, an air of optimism, and change.

It was, with the exception of the Labour party, who were handicapped with Gordon Brown, a positive campaign, and yet here was the BNP, droning on in black and white, harking back to a bygone era, and offering nothing positive.

Sure, people tune into shows like the Royal, and get all nostalgic, but they sure as hell don't want to live in those times.

And what is it with all these terrible publicity stunts, attempting to court controversy all the time?

It's like dropping your pants in the playground, sure, it's going to get you attention, but it's only going to make you look like an idiot.

Originally Posted by The Nationalist

A change in voting system would realy give us a boost.

I like the following: "The Liberal Democrats won around 23 percent of the vote, but will end up with only 7 percent of the seats in Parliament."

The Liberal Democrats could drag all smaller parties into parliment on there quest for more power. A direct PR system realy could win us a mass of seats.

Well that depends what you want out of life.

Proportional Representation is only really favored by the center parties, and career politicians, who are more interested in a regular pay check, than actually achieving anything, as it only really favors the center parties.

Look at the last two elections, and then imagine them under a system of PR.

2010:

Under PR the result would be, approximately:

Conservatives: 234 seats

Liberals: 149 seats

Labour: 189 seats

2005:

Conservatives: 208 seats

Liberals: 143 seats

Labour: 228 seats

See the pattern?

With 326 seats needed to form a majority, and given that Labour are on the left, and the Conservatives are on the right, so that they will never form a coalition, as they have no common ground, the Liberal Party would be almost permanently in government.

If we'd introduced Proportional Representation, in 1910, 100 years ago, the liberals would have been part of the government for 95 of those years, so of course they want the system, but the trouble is it doesn't work quite the same way for a party on either wing, and politically the BNP are out on a wing.

Sure, at this last election they could have maybe got about 60 seats, and they could have had 60 MP's turning up every day, to vote, and collect their wages, and expenses, but as a political party on the fringe, they could never push a single policy through.

Take immigration, a policy close to the BNP's heart.

Labour, Liberals, and Conservatives all talk about caps, and/or points systems, so the only real discernible difference is in numbers.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's say that under Labour the cap is 99,000 a year, under the Liberals 49,000 a year, and under the Conservatives 29,000 a year.

The most anyone can ever achieve, under Proportional Representation, is to vote in place a cap that is a compromise somewhere between the top figure, and the bottom figure.

So the most these 60 BNP MP's could achieve would be to try and force the figure as low as possible, under some sort of compromise, but with the BNP wanting no immigration, they could never support their own policy, only vote for an opposing policy, unless they had a parliamentary majority.

Now, under PR, to get a parliamentary majority they would need to get over 50% of the vote, and under first past the post, to get a parliamentary majority they would need less than that, in fact, to use an historical example, Labour got into power, with a majority, with only 35% of the vote, in 2005.

So, to return to the issue of immigration, to halt immigration, which is the desire of the BNP, under a PR system they would need over 50% of the vote (something that's only been achieved once, by a single party, in the last 100 years), where as under first past the post they could possibly achieve it with as little as 35% of the vote.

Sure, under PR, they could have as much as 60 redundant MP's, drawing a salary, but what's more important, their policies, or their MP's wage packets?

For a party like the BNP it doesn't take a political genius to work out that PR is possibly the worst possible scenario, as it would almost certainly ensure, even if they ever got their act together, and became a credible political party, capable of appealing to a sizable proportion of the population, that it would permanently exclude them from a genuine position of power, and the ability to push through any of their own major policies.

Mind you, maybe the fact that I'm not a BNP member, or supporter, but I'm having to sit here and explain that, whilst on a blog, linked from this thread, the leader of the party can't work it out (or maybe is more interested in drawing a salary, than actually delivering on any of his policies?), perhaps explains why the BNP have no credability with the electorate, and have yet to run a single, succesful, nationwide general election campaign?