After the crushing defeat inflicted on the BNP in the 2010 elections, BNP chairman Nick Griffin e-mailed BNP members to plead for their continued financial support, arguing that blame for the BNP defeat lay in the electoral system, not in his leadership. Nick Griffin argued that the BNP "tripled its vote from 2005, jumping from 192,746 to a healthy 563,743", ignoring the reason why BNP votes rose after 2005 - which was only because the BNP contested 3 times more seats in 2010, not because the proportion of voters who support the BNP had increased. Nick Griffin also ignored the catastrophic collapse in BNP support since the BNP polled 1 million votes in the 2009 Euro election - between 2009 and 2010 Nick Griffin LOST the support of half a million voters!
Nick Griffin also argued that if the UK adopts the Liberal Democrat policy of Proportional Representation (PR), the BNP would win seats in Parliament... he's right, and that's exactly why Britain must never adopt Proportional Representation.
If British people wanted our MPs to be elected by PR, then we'd elect a Lib Dem government. Instead the Lib Dems lost the election, but, in a complete travesty of all the moral principles underlying democratic politics, we now find the Lib Dems using the disproportionate and un-representative power given by their ability to swing a hung parliament, to try to impose a policy that Britain effectively voted AGAINST in the General Election.
It takes very little political sophistication to realise that PR is only superficially more "democratic" than the first-past-the-post system used in traditional British democracy, and Lib Dems who support PR should examine their motives very carefully before choosing to open the door to a party run by Holocaust Deniers, racists and closet Nazis. Green Party supporters who support PR should also remember that the Greens achieved their historic breakthrough MP without Proportional Representation.
47 comments:
Also on the website is the lie that they are the 4th biggest UK party according to "Nationalist political statistician" Martin Wingfield, ie long life NF then BNP member! UKIP had a larger % share of votes and greens managed an MP out of the current system which they claim is unfair.
If we do go into PR we need every party leader from the right of centre to swear no coalition with the BNP otherwise we have to campaign against them as well
Are things really this bad?!
What about creating a real political alternative to the bnp on their own door steps, rather than all these 'survival' measures?
All this does is play up to all this shit that 'the left' (whatever that is!) is 'undemocratic'.
Grow up!!
As a Green I see your point but disagree with you.
Bee.
Actually much of the Labour Party now supports PR as well.
I'm not going to go through the arguments why PR is more democratic, they have been well rehearsed elsewhere. What I will say is that it is outrageous to allow Nick Griffin to set our political agenda. An electoral system should be chosen because it it the best system by reference to accepted criteria, not on the basis of whether the BNP would win seats.
In reality many PR systems have a threshold, such as 5%, which the BNP fell greatly short of in this year's general election. And although PR gave the BNP a seat on the London Assembly, that victory, achieved in a low turnout election, has given the BNP no influence whatsoever.
I disagree with this, had the Tories scored just a percentage point higher across the country we'd have had a majority Tory government returned on a touch over a third of the vote.
FPP is a moribund system. All elections are currently decided by a handful of swing seats in the midlands and the south - it's hardly fair.
Yes PR could potentially return fascist MPs but that just makes it even more important for activists to get their message heard. You can't deny democracy on the basis that someone we don't like may get into power. One of the main arguments for FPP is the 'need for strong government', isn't this one of the main aims of the parties of the far right?
Thanks for embedding. I anticipate taking a certain amount of flak for this posting, as, with the obvious exception of not liking the BNP, I've generally tried to avoid party politics; but it's important to stress this video is not anti-Lib Dem or anti-Green. I've got no problem at all with either party on any issue except their attitudes to PR.
Anyone who's been looking at recent BNP chatter will know Griffin is using the prospect of increased and future PR elections to try and keep BNP members on board.
See ya's ;)
What total, complete and utter rubbish!
Nobody voted in the General Election on the basis of whether they wanted a form of PR or not. What we got was a Tory government elected by a little more than a third of those who could be bothered to vote, which was only about two thirds of the voters. This means that we are being governed by a party which about 75% of the population didn't want - how is that democratic?
OK, any other party has even less of a mandate, but that does not change the facts.
No matter how anti-BNP someone is, the very worst (and most idiotic) thing they can do is relate everything to whether or not the BNP may (may, not will) benefit from it in some way. Choosing an electoral system purely on how it will affect one party (positively or negatively) is the start of a slippery slope that inevitably leads to, er, well, fascism.
The way forward is to combat the BNP, their policies and their members, not to run and hide behind laws, which says little more than 'we have no way to defeat them, the people support them, so we will change the system to stop them because the people are too stupid to know what is good for them, like we very clever, superior people do'.
Deciding on PR solely on the basis of the BNP vote - no, no, no!
This article is far too simplistic to be taken seriously.
It is the causes of racism that is at the heart of the problem. The lack of decent homes and jobs.
The current unrepresentative system has allowed the BNP to flourish. Not the other way around.
Hmm, this is a dangerous argument to make, as it would also exclude worthier small aprties than the BNP. I like Craig Murray's take on the single transferable vote as the best kind of pr:
"On the BNP, there is no region where they came anywhere near to getting 16%. But I am afraid to say that should the BNP be able to get that kind of level of support, I think they would be entitled to their MP."
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/05/voting_systems.html#comments
PR would be the fairest way of running an election.
Yes, if this election had been run with PR, then there would be some BNP MPs. As well as some more for LibDem and some for other small parties too.
But those parties all got a percentage of the vote.
The way to battle the BNP is not to stick with an unfair system that makes it impossible to break the 2 party stranglehold, but rather to aim for education and exposure that erodes their vote share.
Besides, I am almost certain that if some BNP candidates became MPs, they would do such a horrible job of it that they would never get re-elected. And there would never be enough of them to vote through any of their insane policies.
The way forward is to combat the BNP, their policies and their members, not to run and hide behind laws, which says little more than 'we have no way to defeat them, the people support them, so we will change the system to stop them because the people are too stupid to know what is good for them, like we very clever, superior people do'.
Deciding on PR solely on the basis of the BNP vote - no, no, no!
Says it all actually....and no-one in the Lib Dem negotiating team will give the idea of a BNP MP happening more than a millisecond of concern
Long time lurker here. Enjoy the blog.
I'm in 2 minds about whether it is better to have fascists inside the system, as PR would permit, as a way of letting the disgruntled let off steam or make absolutely sure we do nothing that might give evil people a higher profile and more publicity. (Remember, whenever the BNP raises the tempo innocent people get hurt by copycat racists).
HOWEVER, I am absolutely sure that arguments such as the one in this thread need to be addressed seriously, not shouted down without debate.
When PR was introduced for the Euro elections it was done without any thought to the issue of extremism, which even then would have been a clear threat to anyone with memories of 1970s Britain. Unfortunately, dissenting voices weren't heard and we ended up with one of the absolute worst forms of PR. One almost guaranteed to benefit extremists.
I hope this time is different. Any change to the electoral laws must be stress-tested against extreme scenarios, not just introduced as a short-term expedient.
Sorry bnpinfo, but you've got this one wrong.
Certain forms of PR or other electoral reform might lead to the BNP being represented in parliament; others would probably make it harder than under FPTP!
Specifically Alternative Vote (AV) would have seen no BNP MPs elected on Thursday - and, if used in local government, would probably have seen them lose the two council seats they defended!
To reply to "Anonymous" no this doesn't "play up to all this shit that the left is undemocratic" - firstly because I'm not from the left, more importantly because proportional representation isn't democratic, because PR empowers parties that lose elections to control the balance of power and thereby dictate terms to the party that the largest number of voters actually voted for (which is exactly what's happening now with the hung parliament).
In terms of statements of the obvious, yes of course this article is "simplistic" - the text was posted on You Tube where the maximum permissable word count is about 800 words! Equally, several comments here point out self-evident flaws of FPP (such as the fact that parties that win elections are rarely command actual majorities), without (apparently) having read the original argument carefully enough to realise that by the same standards of democratic worth, PR would be EVEN WORSE
Marianne's claim (echoed by a more recent comment) that "an electoral system should be chosen because it it the best system by reference to accepted criteria, not on the basis of whether the BNP would win seats" begs an obvious question about what criteria are accepted by whom (?) but I agree we should choose the BEST system - this is (as explained) the main reason I oppose PR.
To explain again... Right now the Lib Dems are exploiting the power given them by the hung parliament to dictate terms despite the fact that they LOST the election, and PR would institutionalise that form of anti-democratic practice. So, I don't only oppose PR because of the way it would be exploited by the BNP, I also oppose PR because of the way it would be exploited by the Lib Dems, or indeed by ANY political party that performed poorly in any election.
This is the only article I have read on here that I disagree with. The article shows a lack of understanding of the various PR systems available.
More research required me thinks......
Hitler and Mussolini were democratically elected
"Green Party supporters who support PR should also remember that the Greens achieved their historic breakthrough MP without Proportional Representation"
We do get alot of Green Party supporters,if they want PR lets not fall out over it.
Griffin is softening the loyal BNP sheeple up to screw more money. You can see the hints in his letter after the ge defeat. What a vile corrupt man. He destroys their election now tries to fleece them for it. It is time he was investigated by the fraud squad along with Dowson and their cronies. In the final para of course -
"This election has been a shambolic farce for our democracy. However, this is an opportunity for us and now is the time to re-structure, modernise and invest in this party's election machine and that's exactly what we ARE going to do."
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/05/message-from-bnp-chairman-nick-griffin.html
We need both a more representative voting system and a strong campaign against the BNP, whatever the voting system.
PR in local elections got Richard Barnbrook elected to the GLA, and PR in European elections got Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons elected to the European Parliament, so why is the logical conclusion that PR in general elections might also see BNP members elected to Westminster so controversial?
Several comments argue that the way to deal with the BNP is to build alternatives and to campaign harder against Fascism, not to oppose PR. Of course we should build alternatives and campaign harder against Fascism, AND oppose PR. Instead of supporting PR, by the same logic used in those comments, minority parties who feel excluded by FPP should propose and promote their own alternatives and campaign hard to get themselves elected - just like the Greens did in Brighton.
The Green movement had proven it has vast influence on popular beliefs, on public policy and on legislation, even before it had any MPs elected, and now the Greens do have an MP, elected fair-and-square under the harshest conditions of FPP.
'I've generally tried to avoid party politics'
you don't have to be a member of a party, there is such a thing as personal politics. You must have some political opinions?
What is important, here, is that this 'anything other than fascists' line will only last so long.
'pull 'em up by the root' as they used to say, all of this pruning (whilst welcome) is not enough...,
Good for Lancaster Unity and the author of the article for bringing this matter up for discussion. It's clearly a hot issue and people rightly feel strongly about it, whichever side of the fence they are on. Personally I feel much the same about PR as I do about consensus voting - it looks nice on paper but gives too much power to the minority at the expense of the majority, in which case it's hardly democratic. Our present system needs looking at and needs to be made fairer but the pros and cons need to be weighed up carefully and a lot more thought given to any possible changes.
Excellent discussion though! :)
*IF* it is the case that "nobody voted in the General Election on the basis of whether they wanted a form of PR or not", then it's even more the case that nobody voted in the General Election because they were actively voting for the adoption of PR (or, putting it another way, if anyone did want PR then they were the ones who voted for a party that lost the election).
Nonetheless, despite our not voting for it, a party that lost the election is now seeking to impose PR as policy on the parties that many more of us did vote for. How, exactly, is that democratic or fair?
Pro-PR comments here seem to be systemically ignoring the issue of minority parties swinging the balance of power. If you want to see how PR works in practice, study Italy and Israel
Right now the Lib Dems are exploiting the power given them by the hung parliament to dictate terms despite the fact that they LOST the election, and PR would institutionalise that form of anti-democratic practice.
Practically all the parties under ANY system LOSE elections i.e. have a minority of votes but FPTP pretends they didn't! The Country is electorally far more divided than before (and has led to the present situation) and we now have a three party establishment and a significant slew of small parties. All these 'constituencies' should be represented in Parliament. If that includes we don't like e.g. BNP voters that a price you pay for democracy (I believe most people including politicians agree and therefore it is likely sooner or later to happen).
Iliacus says this article's wrong because "certain forms of PR... might lead to the BNP being represented in parliament; others would probably make it harder than under FPTP... specifically Alternative Vote (AV)"
This comment would be relevant IF the Lib Dems are proposing AV in the hung parliament deals they're trying to strike at moment, and IF AV was used in the elections where BNP members were elected?
If it's not AV we're talking about in those 3 specific contexts, then discussion of AV is relevant to a theoretical debate about electoral reform, but not relevant to this debate here
Please confirm
Anonymous said..."Hitler and Mussolini were democratically elected"
Erm.... Hitler was not democratically elected. He was placed in power by a weak government, he seized power through a wek government, and he had himself installed as dictator via a weak democracy.
Democratic? ... nah
People have the right to vote for who ever they wish. PR will make sure peoples vote matters. UKIP, BNP, the Greens and Christian parties. It's called democtracy, and people are sick of playing musical chairs with same two.
I don't think "PURE" PR will happen in this country or it's even on the table in these latest Con/Lib talks.
In future, if you get 0.5% of the vote then you won't be getting 0.5% of the seats (this is Israeli-style pure PR and fairly few democracies operate it). Instead the voting system will be fairer but you'll have to reach a fairly high benchmark before seats are allocated.
Anyway, so what if the BNP got a few MP's? This should just galvanise anti-facsists to work harder to defeat them and show them up for what they are.
Why are the Liberal/Left scared of PR? Are we that unsure of our principles and beliefs that we would continue to support the totally unrepresentative 'First past the post' system just to keep the BNP out??
We are right, the BNP is wrong! Let's prove it in a fair, democratic, representative political system.
I for one do not fear the BNP - have the courage of your convictions for God's Sake!!!
The BNP, and indeed any party, will only get MPs elected under PR if they get enough votes, as they have done under FPTP at council level as well as at MEP level under the top-up PR system. But they didn't get seats in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly under that system because they didn't get enough votes.
In France the FN gets MPs elected under a system that isn't PR. In Germany they have PR but no far-right MPs. So it's not simply about the system.
Under the present system Labour took the blind policy that only the middle-class mattered as the working-class would vote for them anyway. This has led to the rise of the BNP. I would argue that PR would mean every vote is worth fighting for. I accept it would be a risk but remember that when Griffin and Brons were elected it was in the middle of a massive scandal over MPs expenses. The BNP vote hardly went up but the Labour vote collapsed so that the BNP sneaked in.
If the mainstream parties behaved themselves the BNP wouldn't be able to pick up protest votes. Only the insane see it as a credible party. Most of its votes are protest votes when Labour in particular screw up.
PR would allow more parties to compete seriously. At the moment only Labour and the Tories are serious contenders for government but not all the time. Their own incompetence causes that. Under PR more parties could compete against the BNP with a chance of getting elected. Politics not systems will defeat the fascists.
"Right now the Lib Dems are exploiting the power given them by the hung parliament to dictate terms".
The Lib Dems are not trying to dictate terms. They are trying to negotiate to arrive at a viable agreement for the government of the UK. In fact the way things are going, it looks more like they have found themselves in a cleft stick.
The only reason that the Lib Dems are in this position is that Labour and the Conservatives will not even consider talking to each other. If they did then the Lib Dems and other minority parties would have no influence whatsoever.
If under PR we ended up with three large parties, it would be open to any two to negotiate with each other to form a majority government. Small parties would not have disproportionate influence.
BNP Mps don't worry me but BNP kingmakers in a role Clegg played this eection did. The far right have been in coalition in Austria for example
There is an article here that rubbishes the claim PR would see the BNP gain significantly.
http://www.vote-no-to-bnp.org.uk/2010/05/proportional-representation-pr-and-the-bnp.html
Hitler was appointed Chancellor, not elected.
Why are the Liberal/Left scared of PR? Are we that unsure of our principles and beliefs that we would continue to support the totally unrepresentative 'First past the post' system just to keep the BNP out??
They're not really 'scared' what with it being their idea.
Concerns derive from the fact that the left don't control the bbc and 80% of the media, the right do and have no problem giving undue favourable coverage to their extremist friends.
from Drugy Clive Jefferson the man who led the election campaign for BNP ""what a JOKER""
BNP Inquiries Top 10,000 Mark Since 1 April
Tue, 11/05/2010 - 19:02 | BNP News
The number of inquiries into the British National Party’s call centre has now topped the 10,000 mark with a new wave of post which arrived yesterday, BNP national elections officer Clive Jefferson has announced.
“The bags of mail also contained another £23,000 in donations to the BNP,” Mr Jefferson said. “This means that the BNP was the only party to start the election in the black and end it the same way.
“This is a tremendous achievement and is a tribute to the professionalism of the back office staff and the BNP’s administration team,” he continued.
“The latest batch of inquiries has taken the total number received since 1 April to well over 10,000. All of the previous inquiries have now been processed and databased.”
Mr Jefferson said that although all of these people had made the effort to inquire and donate, it would still require further effort to get them to join or become regular donors.
“For this reason all 10,000 people must be visited, spoken to and encouraged to join,” he said.
“For this purpose, the BNP’s regional organisers will be tasked with organising teams of activists to visit every inquirer.
“Every single branch and group in the country will also start holding social events where these new people can mingle with long-established BNP members and supporters and find out for themselves what the true BNP is about,” Mr Jefferson said.
“This is a time of great growth for the BNP and we are privileged to serve the party at this moment in time. All we have to do is hold the line and not buckle under the wave of attacks, smears and sabotage by enemy agents who managed to infiltrate the party,” he said.
“We know that our cause is just, our policy correct and our ideal untouchable. We will win, because we must.”
and if you believe this garbage your druged up like JEFFERSON+++++
All this no platform business is all well and good, but frankly the attitudes of people like the BNP need to be put up there for scrutiny and if that means they get elected in parliament, then so be it. The BNP are notoriously shit at practically everything they attempt to do, so I'm sure a BNP MP would fuck up royally at the first opportunity.
The pariah status we afford them merely plays into their hands as they play victim and distance themselves from the gravy-train culture of the three main parties (which, given Brons and Griffin's behaviour in Europe, is massively ironic).
Anyway, what I'm saying is, let the people decide.
jefferson on his bog. thinks hes supreme ruler.what a tosser
"We will win, because we must.”
Has any leading BNP'er made any comment on the Barking and Dagenham Council wipe-out?
"Unease over the machinations of the British electoral process is prompting calls for electoral reform, with many commentators extolling the virtues of proportional representation (PR)... The system is far from flawless – as Israelis have found to their cost for years... Successive governments have paid dearly for forming coalitions with radical minority partners, especially when it comes to the perennial problems associated with the Palestinian conflict. Instead of Israelis having faith in one party to see out its full tenure without having the rug pulled from beneath its feet, reality has meant a constant battle between warring coalition members – often leading to mid-term collapse of governments and early elections... Too many cooks routinely spoil the broth – especially when many of them hail from the extremist, fundamentalist end of the political spectrum"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/29/israel-proportional-representation
To reply to some of the pro-PR comments...
> "Practically all the parties under ANY system LOSE elections i.e. have a minority of votes but FPTP pretends they didn't!"
In terms of not winning an absolute majority, the Lib Dems just LOST the general election even MORE BADLY than the Tories and Labour did, yet the UK now has a Lib Dem as Deputy Prime Minister and probably Lib Dem ministers, despite the fact that the nation DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS.
FPTP "pretends" nothing. FPTP has many flaws but minority parties commanding the balance of power (as happens both in hung parliaments and in PR) is even LESS democratic
> "Hitler was not democratically elected. He was placed in power by a weak government"
PR produces weak governments!
> "PR will make sure peoples vote matters"
PR will make sure that minority parties (the parties most people did not vote for) become (to use a recent media term) the "King Makers" in forging parliamentary alliances. That means that the votes of most people - the people who did not vote for the minority parties, matter LESS than the votes of people who voted for the democratically more popular parties. This is not democratic.
> "First past the post' system just to keep the BNP out?"
No, FPP because it keeps ALL minority parties from wielding un-representative power
To reply to some more pro-PR comments...
> "I accept it would be a risk but... if the mainstream parties behaved themselves the BNP wouldn't be able to pick up protest votes"
Recent research has proven that BNP protest votes are far less significant than previously assumed, and that many BNP supporters are instead just dyed-in-the-wool hard-line racists, but either way, since when have Fascist regimes EVER not come to power in the midst of a political crisis?
> "The Lib Dems are not trying to dictate terms. They are trying to negotiate to arrive at a viable agreement for the government of the UK"
Yes the Lib Dems definitely ARE trying to dictate terms, because they do NOT need to demand PR to "arrive at a viable agreement for the government of the UK" (their interest in PR is definitely surplus to that particular requirement)
"On the BNP, there is no region where they came anywhere near to getting 16%"
Yes there is - Barking, where even in defeat Griffin polled 14.6%
NO PR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Typing error - sorry, that SHOULD have read...
> "PR will make sure peoples vote matters"
PR will make sure that minority parties (the parties most people did not vote for) become (to use a recent media term) the "King Makers" in forging parliamentary alliances. That means that the votes of most people - the people who did not vote for the minority parties, matter less than the votes of people who voted for the democratically LESS popular parties. This is not democratic.
***************************
Anyway, the Lib Dems have now dropped PR, so we've won that one and Nick Griffin can't use it as a lure to keep wavering BNP supporters on board :)
Hello, I hope you don't mind me linking to this discussion from my blog (in a footnote): http://vsevolodphillips.blogspot.com/2010/05/cost-of-pr.html
For the record, I'm pro PR as vehicle for strengthening democracy but acknowledge that much of the left has yet to appreciate its empowering effect on the far right.
Depends what system was used, STV wouldn't make it much easier for them.
Post a Comment