The BNP since May...not performing well!

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

There have been 65 local council byelections since the May General Election.

Courtesy of a posting on the excellent Vote-2007 website I can offer a breakdown of the BNP's vote share in those byelections, on a region by region basis. The table below lists the region; the number of byelections held in that area since May; and the BNP's vote share overall in that region.

It makes grim reading for the BNP - and happy reading for sane human beings!

East Midlands 6 - 1%
Eastern 6 - 1%
London 7 - 1%
North East 7 - 2%
North West 11 - 1%
Scotland 1 - 0
South East 11 - 0
South West 4 - 1%
Wales 5 - 0
West Midlands 5 - 2%
Yorkshire 2 - 2%

The dreadful performance of the BNP reflects two elements - the fact that they are failing to field many candidates, and that the candidates who do manage to stand are polling very poor results.

Enjoy!

July - beaches, barbecues...and BNP burnout!

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

There were (by my reckoning) 35 local authority byelections in July (I speak here of "principal area authorities" - counties, boroughs, unitaries; not parish/community councils). The BNP contested just five of them.

The totals for each party were in fact as follows: Conservatives 32, Liberal Democrats 26, Labour 25, UKIP 10, Greens 10, BNP 5, Plaid Cymru 3 and the English Democrats 1.

Interestingly, there was no "new ground" broken this month, which is unusual and must be very depressing for the BNP leadership. This also allows fairly easy comparison with past performance.

Having fielded no candidates at all in the seven byelections held on July 1st, they contested three of the seven contests held on the 8th. In Darlington they polled 4.8%, down from 13.6%. Their actual vote fell from the remarkably uniform 157 (in 2003) and 167 (2007) to a pathetic 41. In Redbridge they contested a ward in which they had polled 624 votes in 2006, but which had no BNP candidate in May 2010. At the byelection they polled just 115 votes (4.5%); because there was multiple voting in a three-member ward in '06 it is not sensible to try to calculate a change in vote share. In neighbouring Barking & Dagenham we saw the appalling Richard Barnbrook seeking to regain a seat having been rejected in May. He failed. Again, it is difficult to calculate meaningful vote-share percentages, but his vote - 642 - was well down on his figures for 2006 (1,454) or May '10 (1,340). But we shouldn't kid ouselves. With 34% of the vote he was worryingly close to the sort of result which could claim a seat in the future. However, given the totemic significance of this byelection to the fascists and his high profile this must have been a crushing disappointment to both Barnbrook and the party.

On the 15th there were nine byelections; and no BNP candidates. The English Democrats entered the fray in Leicester, a ward they had not previously contested. They got 33 votes (1.6%).

The eight byelections on the 22nd saw just one BNP candidate, in Basildon. They polled 70 votes (3.9%), down from 8.8% last time.

Finally, on July 29th they contested one of three byelections, in the Bilston North ward of Wolverhampton Council, a ward in which they had polled 589 votes (11.8%) in May. This time they polled 131 (6.6%). A miserable, wretched performance.

Incidentally, in neighbouring Walsall there had been a byelection in the Bloxwich ward on 15th July. Now this is a ward in which the BNP had previously performed reasonably well, with 719 votes (22.1%) in 2006 and 722 (12.6%) in 2010. Almost incredibly, they failed to nominate a candidate!

So to summarise - no electoral progress; votes and vote share down wherever it could be (sensibly) calculated; failure to field a candidate in a ward where they had previously managed over 20%; and no evidence of finding new candidates in new areas.

Now you may wonder why I have not put the above figures through the much-loved and widely-respected Iliacometer. Well, to be perfectly honest one doesn't need an Iliacometer to summarise the current electoral fortunes of the BNP. They are doing very, very badly!

Good!

P.S. I have managed to trace records of sixteen parish council byelections during the month. The BNP failed to find a candidate in any of them.

The BPP cannot count - are we surprised?

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

Although, of course, it's the arrival - eventually, maybe - of the BNP's accounts which gives us the greatest amusement, from time to time it's worth looking at the financial performance of some of the lesser players on the nuttier fringes of the far-right.

The BPP (British People's Party) for example. Now, credit to this group - at least it met the deadline for submitting its 2009 accounts, something the BNP failed to achieve. As it did for 2008. And 2007. And 2006. And 2003-2005 for that matter.

For those who don't know, the BPP is a far-right micro-party, born out of a split in the Nationalist Alliance. Its leading (I use the term loosely) lights are Kevin Watmough and David Jones, who between them fill the four official positions within the party. (A simple google search will tell you all you need to know about these two characters, their party, and their past). Their annual report for 2009 reveals that they fought no elections in the year, concentrating instead on building membership and organisation.

The success of these efforts can be gauged by their electoral efforts in 2010. They fought one ward - Todmorden in Yorkshire - where David Jones polled a magnificent 4.95% of the vote. Pretty terrible for what must have been a national target ward. After all, it was their only ward!

Anyway to return to their 2009 accounts. The accounts were, at least, on time. Unfortunately they're gibberish. Consider the following, and tell me if I've misunderstood.

Carried forward from previous year £120
Income during 2009 £2,655
Expenditure during 2009 £1,475
Balance at end of year £868.79

Now, my calculation is 120 + 2655 - 1475 = 1300
So where's the missing £431.21 gone?

Or are they just idiots? I think I know the answer to that one!

Struggling in Stoke

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

Stoke-on-Trent is meant to be a jewel in the crown for the BNP - why else would they parachute Simon 'Stoke - is that near Barking?' Darby into the Stoke Central constituency?

However, with the publication of the nominations for the City Council elections (also on May 6th) we can see that the wheels are not so much coming off, as bouncing through the hedge at the side of the road!

All twenty City Council seats have a single seat up for re-election. Labour and the Conservatives are fighting all 20. Liberal Democrats 19. Independents (Stoke has lots of different Independents) 18. UKIP 10.

And the BNP? Six candidates. Six. Three of whom are existing sitting councillors. Hardly a sign of strength.

And in Darby's 'target' seat of Stoke Central, supposedly the second-best BNP prospect in the whole of Britain, they are contesting just three of the seven wards. No normal political party would consider failing to field a full slate of local election candidates in what is supposedly a key target constituency. But then, as we all know, the BNP is not normal.

There's a further interesting detail. One of the six towns which make up the City of Stoke-on-Trent is Longton. Its two wards (North and South) have long been considered the BNP's heartland in the area. It elected the first BNP councillor in 2002. In 2007 Griffin himself attended the Stoke count because he expected Longton North to become the first ward in Britain to elect a full slate of BNP members in three consecutive elections (they didn't). In 2008 they polled 25.8% in North; 19.4% in South.

And in 2010 they are contesting neither seat!

Meanwhile, in the Abbey Green ward of Central they face their own former group leader (Alby Walker); in Weston & Meir North (South constituency) they face an EFP candidate. The local elections are going to be rather overshadowed by the general election, but the results in Stoke-on-Trent could prove to be very interesting on May 7th.

We Like Glyn Ward

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

Thursday's by-election in the Glyn Ward of the Bay of Colwyn Town Council could normally pass without in-depth political analysis, but since it was contested by the BNP - who also contested it at the last all-out elections in May 2008 - it's worth reviewing. Bear in mind also that the BNP has been moderately active in this area with a handful of members being elected (usually unopposed) to community councils (though even this has usually ended in tears with resignations and miscellaneous bickering!).

Now I must start by pointing out that the Bay of Colwyn Town Council is, in fact, that uniquely Welsh thing, a Community Council. The Welsh equivalent of a Parish Council (diestablishment having taken place in Wales, they shun the use of parishes for civil purposes). Its powers are very limited, and it is hardly a hotbed of political interest or activism - shown by the fact that only five names were put forward in May 2008 for the four seats on offer.

The result on that occasion was:

Plaid Cymru - 709 - Elected
Labour - 546 - Elected
Labour - 414 - Elected
Independent - 196 - Elected
BNP - 143 - not elected

Note that none of the parties came close to fielding a full slate of candidates, and that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats couldn't nominate a single name! Note also that the BNP was just 54 votes short of being elected.

At the byelection on March 25th there were six candidates (but still no Conservative), and they polled:

Labour - 150
Plaid Cymru - 121
Liberal Democrat - 78
Independent - 62
BNP - 35
Independent - 26

It's very difficult to make comparisons because of the switch from people being able to vote for up to four candidates to a single vote. There were probably round 900 votes cast in 2008, and 472 at the by-election. What we do know is that on Thursday the BNP share of the vote was 7.4%.

Oh, and one other interesting footnote. The gentleman from Plaid Cymru who polled 709 votes in 2008 was one Abdul Mukith Khan. We like Glyn ward!

Grim polling news for the BNP...how sad, how very sad

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

A major opinion poll by Ipsos MORI was published at the weekend. Polls, of course, need to be treated with caution, and it's never wise to read too much into a single set of figures, but MORI is a reputable pollster and there is some interesting information to be found - especially in the detailed figures. And the news is pretty grim for the BNP!

The base polling figures for the minor parties run UKIP 4%, Greens 3% and BNP 2%. Of course, when you get down to figures like this there is a significant margin of error. The number of people responding is low, and the risk of sampling error is high, but the basic message is simple. None of these parties have any sort of widespread, national support in the context of a general election.

Regional breakdowns are even more subject to sampling error, since the numbers involved are smaller still. For the BNP their 'best' region is the Midlands (4%), with 1% recorded in the South and the North. Support shown in London was so low that it failed to register - technically it was 0%, though obviously that doesn't mean that nobody will vote BNP in London at the general election. But what it does suggest is that, in the context of a general election, the BNP will struggle to poll above 2-3% across London as a whole. It certainly isn't encouraging news, for example, if you were a prominent BNP member who had decided to look for a London seat in which to stand ... thinking perhaps that the party's best chance was in that area ...

MORI also breaks down responses by age group. The BNP polls 4% in the 18-34 age group, 2% among the 35-54 age group. For over-55s their share is less than 1%. Their apologists might claim this as evidence that the BNP was "the party of the future", but there are two flaws to such an argument.

Firstly, the under-35s are far less likely to turn out to vote; turnout is highest among over-55s, the very group where BNP support is weakest. Secondly party loyalty is weakest among young voters; strongest in older voters. So the BNP is strongest among voters who are less likely to vote, and most likely to change their minds and perhaps drift away. The BNP is weakest among voters who are most likely to vote, and who are less likely to switch (e.g. to the BNP).

There are some further interesting findings:

• Social Group : BNP support is 1% in Social Groups A, B and C1 - professional, managerial and skilled; 3% in Social Groups C2, D and E - unskilled, unemployed, economically inactive.
• Housing Type: In social rented housing BNP support reaches 5%; it's 3% in the private rented sector, 1% in owner-occupation.

There is no categorisation for educational achievement, but there is a breakdown by newspaper readership. I've not noticed such a breakdown previously and it's worth listing in full:

• Amongst tabloid readers: Con 41%, Lab 34%, Lib Dem 14%, UKIP 5%, Green 3%, BNP 2%.
• Amongst broadsheet readers: Con 42%, Lib Dem 25%, Lab 24%, Green 4%, UKIP 3%, BNP 0%.

Yes, that's correct. They couldn't find a single BNP supporter who read a broadsheet newspaper. Are we surprised? No.

So, to summarise (with tongue firmly in cheek!). For success the BNP needs a constituency in the Midlands; with a high proportion of under-35s; who live in social rented housing; are in social groups C2, D and E; and only read tabloid newspapers. And even there they would only just climb above 5%!

Seriously, there will be areas where the above demographic combines with one or more of the following - an active local BNP group; incompetence/ idleness in the mainstream parties; a particular local issue which benefits the BNP. And where that happens, on a very local basis, the BNP will poll well above their national levels.

None of this polling means that we can relax, or that we can ignore the danger of BNP progress at the general election. But what it does mean is that despite the election of two MEPs, despite Question Time, despite all the boasting, despite the lies and distortions in the popular press playing to the BNP agenda; despite all this the BNP have failed to make any significant progress in winning the hearts, minds and - especially - votes of the vast majority of the British people.

The Iliacometer - What happened in November

On 24th November I posted a taster of some of the Iliacometer ratings for the month. With all byelection results now in I can offer a full review of the month, which was rather pathetic for the BNP. How sad.

Those who have been following my posts will know that I have created six 'performance indicators' (PIs) by which the BNP's performance can be assessed objectively. An earler article set out the basis of these PIs - so I will content myself with giving you the figures, and any relevant observations.

PI.1 Percentage of byelections contested in month: 12%
The lowest figure for some time, well down on the 35% of July, and 33% in September. Put bluntly, the BNP contested just two seats out of seventeen! (During the same month the Greens contested four seats - the Lib Dems sixteen!)

PI.2 Percentage of byelection contested over previous two months : 18%
The purpose of this rolling average is to 'smooth out' the effects of one particularly good or bad month. There is a clear trend over the past few months:
End-August 31% September 30% October 26% November 18%

PI.3 Rate of contesting previously-contested wards : not applicable in Nov

PI.4 Percentage share of the vote retained : not applicable in Nov
None of the seats up in November had been contested at the preceding election, so these PIs do not apply for the month. (The October figures were 50% and 59%).

PI.5 Rolling average percentage vote in 'new' wards : 7.5%
At the end of July this figure was 10.5%; end-October 9.3%. Their performance in 'new' areas seems to be on a downward trend. The days when the BNP could put up a candidate in 'virgin' territory and get 20%+ seem - at least for the moment - to have passed.

PI.6 Rolling average percentage vote in 'abandoned' wards : n/a in Nov
Again, as there were no such cases in November no figure can be calculated.

Summary. Only 17 byelections in the month; none in wards recently contested by the BNP. Where they did stand - Doncaster and Knowsley - they polled 4.3% and 8.6% (average 6.45%). In Doncaster their share may have been reduced by the presence of an English Democrat. And although they had not previously contested the Knowsley seat (Halewood South), they had polled 20% in a neighbouring ward (Halewood North) in 2008 so a very poor result.

They are fielding fewer candidates, who are then polling worse results. That's why I have described November as 'pathetic' for the BNP. Let's hope December follows the trend!

The Iliacometer - a November preview

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

At the end of October I set out a number of 'performance indicators' by which the electoral progress of the BNP might be assessed.

By the end of the week, following a Knowsley by-election, I will be able to post the full details for November, with evidence of any trends in polling, but for the moment here is an update on indicators a and ai - which assess their ability to contest elections.

Here are the monthly figures since July for seats contested; by-elections which have taken place; and the percentage contested by the BNP - my indicator a):

July 8 - 23 - 35%
August 2 - 9 - 22%
September 8 - 24 - 33%
October 8 - 38 - 21%
November 2 - 17 - 12%

Yes, you read that correctly - in 17 by-elections across Britain the so-called British National Party managed to find just 2 candidates (Conservatives 15, Labour 11, Lib Dems 16! , Greens 4). That's 12% - less than one in eight! (In July and September they were contesting a third of seats, or more.)

On my indicator ai) which aims to smooth out monthly variations by taking a rolling figure across the previous two months the trend was:

End-August 31% September 30% October 26% November 18%

I see a trend there - and it cheers me more than it will please the BNP! Back in a few days with news of the other indicators on the Iliacometer! Not to be missed!

A long view - July to October

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

In among all the hype and hoopla following the appearance of some bloke from the BNP on some late-night television programme, I thought it would be interesting to review BNP performance over the past few months, from the beginning of July (as the effects of the Euro elections started to ease off) to the end of October.

During that period there were no fewer than 94 local authority byelections; the BNP fought 26 (28%). There is some evidence that their ability to field candidates has weakened. In July they fought eight seats out of twenty-three (35%); in August 2/9 (22%); September 8/24 (33%); October 8/38 (21%). Perhaps eight is their magic number above which they cannot climb!

Seventeen of the 94 wards had seen a BNP candidate at a recent previous election. No fewer than seven of these were abandoned at the byelection, a very significant feature, and which underlines one of the party's greatest weaknesses - its inability to maintain activist interest and commitment. In three of these wards they had previously polled in excess of 14% of the vote, so it's not just a case of walking away from hopeless areas.

There are therefore ten seats in which a comparison can be made with their performance in (normally) the preceding election. In nine of these their vote share fell. The only exception was the rather unusual Boston byelection on 15th October where their vote share leapt from 20.6% in June to 37.7% in October. They may well have benefitted from the unusual circumstances of the vacancy, and the withdrawal of UKIP and a local Independent Group from the fray (who had taken 15.6% in June), but it still represented a good night for the BNP and a worryingly close result for the rest of us (they finished just 16 votes adrift of the victorious Conservative candidate).

That, however, was the only good news for the BNP. In every other contest their share of the vote fell. I have illustrated this by listing the percentage of vote share retained (PVSR). It is easier to give an example than to define this idea. If they previously took 40% and now took 20% then the PVSR would be 50; if they polled 10% then the PVSR would be 25. An increased share of the vote would give a PVSR of 100+. I have used this technique rather than the more usual change in vote share as the latter is difficult to set in context. Under change in vote share a fall from 28% to 23% 'looks' the same as 10% to 5%, whereas it's actually a very different outcome.

So, excluding the Boston result (PVSR 183!), the PVSR in the remaining nine seats was: 58 54 64 53 46 42 62 59 77

In only one case did their vote share fall by less than a quarter; in two cases their vote share fell by more than half. On average they lost 43% of their vote share in these wards. The samples are pretty small, but the general trend is of performance worsening from July into September, then recovering in October. Whether this recovery is real and sustainable remains to be seen.

They contested 16 'new' seats over the five month period. Looking at some old notes I found that in February 2009 they averaged 22% in 'new' seats (boosted by the extraordinary 41% - and seat gained - in Swanley). The highest share of the vote achieved in a first-time seat in the July to October period was 13.6%! In eight of the wards - precisely half of them - they polled under 10%. A rolling average, based on the five most recent examples, shows a drift downward from 10.5% at the end of July to 9.3% at the end of October.

And so to the seven 'abandoned' seats - wards previously contested, but in which no byelection candidate was fielded. One of these was an inner-city Birmingham seat at which they had previously polled a miserable 1.5% so withdrawal might indicate a rare case of political sense! But in the other six cases only one had a previous vote share under 10%, and three had recorded vote shares between 14 and 16%.

Now I shall leave it to my readers to interpret the above as they see fit, but I feel it indicates a poor summer and early autumn for the BNP. I also feel there are some useful 'benchmarks' against which the party's progress (or regress hopefully!) can be assessed, and I shall suggest the following:

a) percentage of byelections contested each month Oct 09 21%
ai) two-month rolling average Sep/Oct 26%
b) rate of contesting previously fought seats each month Oct 09 50%
c) percentage share of the vote retained (past 10 byelections but excluding the best and the worst to avoid being affected by 'freak' results under special circumstances) Oct 09 59%
d) rolling average (past 5 results) of vote share in 'new' wards Oct 09 9.3%
e) rolling average (past 5 results) of vote share in 'abandoned' seats Oct 09 11.1%

The purpose of a and ai is hopefully obvious; b assesses their ability to continue to maintain activist involvement by contesting elections; c assesses performance in areas of sustained activity; d assesses progress - or otherwise - in opening up new areas; e indicates the effects of member disenchantment, and whether they are simply standing down in weak areas, or struggling in areas of past strength.

Good news - from our perspective - would be to see a) ai) b) c) and d) all falling, and e) rising. Anyway, I shall look forward to updating these figures in due course to see whether it does give us a useful tool in assessing their performance.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, the overall BNP performance across the five months was: No Holds, no Gains, one Loss - overall minus 1 seat. Happy days!

The Quiet Revolution is getting noisier...it's the sound of the wheels coming off!

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

It's been some time since I offered up one of my by-election roundups - perhaps the election of those two berks in June [you know who I mean!] brassed me off. But here's my return - prompted by interesting developments as the summer has progressed, and particularly the pattern which seems to be developing.

The fact is that over the past few weeks the BNP's participation rate has been falling, and their performance has not so much stalled as fallen backwards. And the events of September 10th underline that trend. There were eight byelections; the BNP fielded candidates in four. [Tories and Lib Dems fought all eight; Labour 6; BNP 4; Greens 3; UKIP 2; Others 6]

Two were being fought for the first time - in Market Harborough they polled 11.1% against Tory and Lib Dem (there was no Labour candidate, despite their having taken around 25% last time). In Westoe (South Tyneside) they polled around 12%, finishing 4th out of 6.

In York (Heworth) they polled 6.7%, about six points down on last time (2007). It's difficult to be precise, because the 2007 election was for all three councillors and there will have been varied vote splitting. Suffice to say that in an area where they gained 507 votes two years ago they managed just 172 this time.

The key contest, however, was in the Drayton ward of Daventry Borough Council. In 2008 the result here had been:

Conservative 654
BNP 451
Labour 257

With 33% of the vote last time, and with three new candidates to split the anti-BNP vote (Lib Dem, Independent and Socialist Alliance), and the prospect of a much reduced turnout they must have had hopes of taking the seat. Well, at least the reduced turnout happened! The result though will have been a huge disappointment to the BNP:

Conservative 314
Labour 158
Lib Dem 138
BNP 133
Independent 129
Socialist Alliance 55

They fell from second to fourth, and their share of the vote collapsed to 14.3%. Dismal, dismal, dismal.

Back in March I reviewed BNP performance at that period. In 'new' seats they were averaging 21%, and in seats previously contested they averaged 17.2% (up 0.8 percentage points on the preceding elections). On September 10th they averaged around 11.6% in 'new seats', and in previously contested seats 10.5% (down from 22.9% - fall of over 12 points).

No room for complacency; the threat remains. But if I were in the echelons of the BNP's election strategy I'd be getting very, very worried!

Good.

Getting the Excuses in Early

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

Those of us who follow the electoral efforts of the BNP know one thing is certain. The BNP never loses an election. No, elections are never lost - they are stolen by the LibLabCon conspiracy! (With the help of ZOG, world jewry, Lancaster Unity, and possibly shape-shifting lizards!)

With the landmark Euro elections only hours away they are quickly getting their excuses into the public domain in case the great breakthrough, the silent revolution, proves elusive. Again.

In the past they have aimed primarily at the failings of the relaxed postal voting system. There is some anecdotal evidence that the operation of the rules has been tightened up this year, with a higher proportion of ballots submitted being rejected. You might expect the BNP to welcome this robust defence of our democratic process - but no, they are of course convinced that it is nothing to do with protecting the security of the ballot. It's bent returning officers deliberately rejecting BNP ballots!

There is just one problem with this interpretation, which will be very obvious to anyone who has ever attended the processing of postal ballots. The acceptance (or rejection) of postal ballots takes place before the opening of the envelopes containing the actual ballot paper. So it would be impossible for any Returning Officer to single out BNP-supporting postal votes for rejection!

But this is merely a byway before we consider the BNP's new conspiracy theory. This is how the 2009 ballot will be rigged (copyright BNP 2009). Presiding Officers (the staff at the actual polling stations) will do the dirty deed. According to the BNP's own official website these people are "town hall bureaucrats who 'work' in parasite jobs created by the Labour government in order to provide their own people with well-paid easy lives at taxpayers' expense" (makes you wonder who on earth manned all those polling stations before 1997!). And at 9.30 on Thursday evening they will start tearing off dozens of ballot papers, cross off a corresponding number of names at random from the electoral register, insert votes in the appropriate (Labour) box and "stuff" the ballot box.

In theory it could be done (on a small scale). In reality this is a very serious, and deeply offensive, slur against local government staff across the nation. Because the idea that presiding officers would seek to act in this way flies in the face of sense, and any knowledge of their ethical standards. Because of the risks of crossing off someone who is dead, or away on holiday, or working away - all of which might then come to light. Because a sudden spike in turnout in a particular area would look suspicious. Because for such practice to be carried out to a degree which could affect the out-turn across an entire region would require a conspiracy on a massive and unsustainable scale.

In 2004 if Labour had somehow persuaded the Presiding Officers in 1,000 polling stations in the North West (that's a minimum of 2,000 corrupt staff) to stuff 150 extra ballot papers into each of those boxes it would have represented 150,000 fraudulent votes - over a quarter of their entire regional vote! And what impact would removing those 'fraudulent' votes have had on the result? None whatsoever! Labour would still have secured three MEPs in the region, and the BNP zero.

In other words - it's typical BNP nonsense, which is surely designed to provide the get-out clause if their performance once again fails to meet their aspirations.

April Fools

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

March was a worrying month for anti-fascists. The BNP was gaining an unfortunate amount of publicity, and a worrying degree of support. They still weren't terribly good at actually fielding candidates - contesting just eight out of twenty one contests. But where they did stand they polled disturbing percentages. In seven seats contested for the first time they averaged 15.97%, with three around the 20% figure and only one (just) below 10%. More encouraging was the result in the only ward that they'd previously contested (in St Helens) where they fell from a poor 8.9% to a dismal 6.3%.

As the song almost said :

To know, know, know them
Is to hate, hate, hate them

April has been less positive for the BNP. They managed to contest four of the seven by-elections on the 2nd, and came worryingly close to snatching the Temple Newsam ward in Leeds (which the Tories gained from Labour, and in which the Lib Dems achieved the biggest swing!). However, even here their vote share only increased marginally, from 22.2% to 23.6%. The moral seems to be that where several of the major parties compete energetically the BNP's chances to advance are limited.

In the Dormanstown ward of Redcar Labour again lost the seat, this time to the Lib Dems, and the BNP (standing for the first time) polled 16.6%. They also polled 13.6% in an Arun Council by-election in rural West Sussex - geographically and demographically a long, long way from Dormanstown!! But in the Skircoat ward of Calderdale, in an area of West Yorkshire once considered a BNP stronghold, they polled just 6.5%. Their failure to field a candidate in Camden on that date might be a reflection of how badly they have done in some recent Inner London contests, but is also part of a pattern of failing to contest byelections in areas one might regard as quite important to their wider strategy (on the last Thursday in February they failed to nominate in seats in Newham, Redditch (2), Oxford and Wolverhampton).

Mid-April was quiet, with no byelections on the 9th and just one on the 16th (in Somerset - no BNP candidate).

On the 23rd though there were six contests, and three BNP nominees (giving a total so far for the month of 7/14 = 50%). In Wanstead (Redbridge London Borough), in their supposedly fertile East London/Essex belt, they managed a thoroughly miserable 4.9%. In Erewash, in their showpiece East Midlands region, they took a poor 11.5% as Labour took the seat off the Conservatives. And then they showed that they are truly the British Nationalist Party (and not just a bunch of English racists) by contesting the Aboyne ward of Aberdeenshire Council. And they got 44 votes - that's a magical 1.2%! It was a result that provoked a lively 'exchange of views' among the keyboard warriors of Stormfront. 'Jacob Cobain' had a ready explanation of the poor result - the ballot boxes had clearly been tampered with!! And every anti-fascist will laugh along as a claim that this was a "worst ever" BNP result was rebutted by a list of results where the deluded fools had managed to plumb the depths of less than 1%. Where but in the BNP would supporters defend a terrible result by listing even worse examples?

"Yeah, we didn't do very well - but it's better than 0.7%. Innit!"

June's Euro-elections are still a worry, with the distinct possibility of one or more of our regions suffering the shame of being represented in the European Parliament by racists, but for the moment just enjoy the thought of taunting your local fascist with their April Fool question:

Which was your worse result BNPer - 4.9% in East London, or 1.2% in Scotland?

One Flew Over The Pig Farm: the BNP and us in 2008 - August

Summer arrives with a vengeance and a nicely sarcastic series of articles by our friend Iliacus, who begins the task of inspecting and analysing the BNP's accounts for 2007 - delivered to the Electoral Commission late, as usual. Iliacus points out the highlights, which to the untrained eye, show a party in great financial trouble, as shown by the auditor for the accounts who states 'the financial statements do not give a true and fair view of the state of the party's affairs'.

• Donation Income falls by 32%
• Membership income up by 38% (?)
• Income from commercial activities down by 68%!
• Deficit for year is £50,000 (against £18,000 surplus in 2006)
• Current cash accounts in chaos
• Balance sheet shows net liabilities of £85,000+
• Party owes £20,000 + in PAYE and VAT - (that's £20k less for schools and hospitals!)

Who is to blame for all this? The party's chairman? Its incompetent treasurer? Perish the thought. Nick Griffin has the answer and says so in his Chairman's Report.

'Oxfordshire police; Labour Party thugs; illegality by Labour Cabinet Ministers; undemocratic thugs from the far-left; local newspapers; the police and the Electoral Commission; third party disparagers; the unions; the Daily Mirror; postal fraud by Labour and LibDem activists; unscrupulous council officials; a small clique of staff and middle ranking officials [within the BNP !]; the violent far-left of the Labour regime; the viciously anti-BNP neo-Nazi fringe. (All listed and identified in Griffin's 'Chairman's Report' as acting against the BNP, and many of them accused of illegal behaviour. Only surprised that he forgot the BBC. Thank goodness he isn't paranoid!)'

Iliacus' masterly summary of the mess that is the BNP's accounts can be read by clicking the links below:

The Accounts (1): First Impressions
The Accounts (2): "We wuz robbed"
The Accounts (3): Figure Skating
The Accounts (4): "and for my next trick"
The Accounts (5) : "a slender merit of providing cosmetic comfort"

Meanwhile the BNP, the party that has nothing but respect for all things British (ho-ho), pisses off everyone by flogging fake Victoria Crosses, thus showing its contempt for our armed forces and incidentally using the income from sales to fund more of the party's extremism and racism. Hero Lance Corporal Johnson Beharry, 28, who won the VC four years ago for saving 30 pals in Iraq, condemned the BNP. He said: “Selling fake VCs is very disrespectful. The honour of the medal and its history shouldn’t be tarnished like this. I take so much pride in my medal and I hate seeing it abused. The medal is not about money or politics and it shouldn’t be worn for fun – that devalues the sacrifice of the soldiers who won it.”

The BNP's Lie Lorry looks to be one of its key moneymakers if the number of begging letters sent out referring to it are anything to go by. You'll recall that the party asked for £30,000 to buy the truck but now they are asking for more to actually put it on the road. No-one in the party (apparently) has the sense to ask why this wasn't factored into the original appeal.

The truth is that the Lie Lorry is yet another of Griffin's scams - remember Boudicca the amazing invisible bus? How much money was raised by the membership for that? Nobody knows, except Griffin and co. And where is the bus? Nobody knows that either. The Truth Truck, being shared with UK LifeLeague, will no doubt appear and will cost the membership dearly. It already has - but this is just the beginning of the scam. And I'll bet there are many more to come.

News reaches us of plans to change the constitution of the BNP to allow leadership challenges to take place quadrennially, rather than annually. There are many changes in the pipeline as Griffin seeks to consolidate his slippery grip on the BNP, many of which are planned for an Extraordinary General Meeting which is to take place at the Red, White and Blue later this month.

The moronic Tommy Williams (he of Covert fame) got in trouble for trying to claim on the nazi Stormfront forum that a bomb had been set off at the entrance to the RWB site. A complete lie that he only told because he thought 'reds' (meaning anyone who opposes the BNP) would get the blame. Silly boy. After a snorter of a telling-off from Nick Griffin, who could obviously imagine the cash-carrying punters melting away into the sunset, Williams quickly printed a retraction, blaming the incident on local children setting off fireworks. Strangely, there is no record of any such incident taking place - not with the police, the local newspapers or any local residents I asked. Am I surprised? Well, no.

Mid-August saw a 700-strong demo against the RWB in Denby somewhat disproportionately policed by 250 officers, many in riot gear. This huge number was supplemented by as many (it seemed) on the BNP's security team. There's a full report of the demo here but one of the highlights was a group of anti-fascists listening to Martin Reynolds, the BNP's then head of security, being told in no uncertain terms by police control to 'breathe deep and calm down' after he called for help in a mad panic. Since then, Reynolds appears to have been replaced by the arrogant Cumbrian and dandy Clive Jefferson. The RWB had a bright spot for Nick Griffin though - he walked away having secured a severance package that could bankrupt the BNP overnight.

At the end of August, the BNP stepped up its production of racially-inflammatory material with yet another leaflet blaming the heroin trade entirely on Muslims via its Preston branch, which seems to have permanently renamed itself the Preston Pals. As usual, the police seem reluctant to take any action despite the fact that there have been numerous complaints about the leaflet. One wonders why...

The month ends with the news that a group calling itself Daten-Antifa has hacked into the servers of the Blood and Honour neo-nazi group, pinching nearly 32,000 items of data on members, their email addresses and their messages from all over the world. While we naturally disapprove of this sort of behaviour, the databank can be found here.

Things can only get...

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

October 9th saw nine by-elections - though two of these were in the same ward for two overlapping authorities, Cheshire County Council (which ceases to exist next March) and the Cheshire East Unitary (which comes into existence in April).

The BNP fielded candidates in just two of these eight areas - the Herne Bay division of Kent County Council, and the Alexandra ward of the London Borough of Haringey.

In Herne Bay they came a poor fourth (though trailed by UKIP) with 399 votes (7.7% of the vote). The turnout was a low 23.2%, giving them a share of the electorate of just 1.79% which is very poor.

In Haringey they did worse, achieving a result of extraordinary awfulness:

Lib Dem 1,460
Labour 772
Conservative 443
Green 221
BNP 27

That's 0.9% as a share of the vote, and a vanishingly tiny 0.32% as a share of the electorate. In other words one out of every 300 voters on the electoral register went out and voted BNP.

The past couple of weeks suggest something of a crisis for the BNP - they are struggling to find candidates across much of the country, and where they do stand their votes range from poor to appallingly bad! Next week the Dewsbury East by-election, triggered by the resignation of Colin Auty, will give us some indication of how they are faring in an area where they have previously gained significant support. It should be interesting.

Another Thursday

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

There were eight by-elections on October 2nd, and once again they brought little cheer for the BNP's increasingly downhearted and empty-pocketed membership.

In Oswestry, Swale (Kent), Taunton and Leominster the electorate were happily spared the attentions of the BNP. In the Witham West ward of Braintree Council they had a lucky escape when the newest BNP celebrity candidate, "somebody whose late father used to be on the telly", decided not to fly their flag after all.

Their headline performance was in Bourne, Lincolnshire. This was a ward in which they probably entertained some hopes of a good performance for several reasons:

1. their Lincolnshire organisation seems (by their own pretty low standards!) to be a reasonably active and almost competent operation;
2. as a small market town, with a strong local civic tradition now subsumed into a larger district and even larger county authority, it might be expected to have a demographic that might be favourable (as seen in places like Melton Mowbray or Leek - which elected a BNP councillor this May);
3. when last contested (2005) it was a straight Tory-Labour fight, with only a moderate Conservative majority. This time there were seven candidates, and the prospect of even a modest share of the vote being enough for victory;
4. there was an energetic BNP campaign effort with three leaflets being delivered to most properties. The Conservatives aside, it is unlikely that any of the other parties saw this as a winnable seat, and their campaigns were probably limited.

But the BNP performance saw them gain just 13% of the vote (239 votes). The Conservatives held comfortably (760), with an Independent second (355). The BNP will make much of their having beaten (just) Labour and the Lib Dems (202 & 198), and of UKIP trailing in last with 41 votes - just 2.2%. But given the circumstances of the by-election this really wasn't a good result from their perspective.

Elsewhere they did even worse. In the Kirkleatham ward of Redcar & Cleveland Unitary Authority they took just 5.8% as the Lib Dems gained the seat from Labour with a huge swing. And in the West Ruislip ward of Hillingdon London Borough we saw the BNP and the National Front going head to head. The former took 4.3%, the latter 2.0%.

Another bad day at the office for the BNP.

There's one other point worth making. Turnouts in local by-elections can vary enormously, sometimes above 50% in keenly-contested bouts and dropping to around 10% on other occasions. Under such circumstances it can be instructive to calculate percentage share of the electorate in addition to percentage share of the vote. Applying this to this week's results (and combining the far-right vote in Ruislip) gives:

Bourne 2.73%
Kirkleatham 2.13%
Ruislip 2.03%

It seems to me (and further research may be worthwhile) that across much of the country there is a 2-3% share of the electorate which inclines to the far-right. This is in accord with such polling as manages to identify BNP support at all! And this "core vote" of far-right support will generally turn out if a BNP candidate is offered. If this is correct, and if the figures aren't skewed by the media/commentators "talking up" the BNP in 2009 in the way that UKIP was "talked up" in 2004, then there is a stark message for next year's Euro elections.

If the BNP's core vote is 3% of the electorate, and the turnout is 40% - they get 7.5% of the vote and MEPs are very unlikely.

But if the turnout is only 30% they get 10% - and a BNP MEP or two becomes a distinct possibility.

If the turnout falls to 25% - they get 12%...

BNP triumphs again (over one in 100 back them!)

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

There were eight by-elections on September 25th, and the BNP managed to contest...er, one of them, in the Hampstead Town ward of the London Borough of Camden. They came fifth...out of five. And they polled 29 votes (the winning Lib Dem got over 1200).

This represented 1.03056% of the vote; a truly dreadful result.

And in the other seven contests - in Chalfont St Giles, Plumstead, Stevenage, Minster (Kent), Sheerness, Alfriston (East Sussex) and Winchester - they failed to field a single candidate. Poor old Simon Darby. His "Quiet Revolution", his claimed breakthrough where the BNP is fielding more and more candidates, in increasingly varied areas, and with increasing support, is turning out to be a delusion. Like so much else in the world of far-right politics!

Not waving, just drowning...

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

September's flood (well, stream...well, brook) of by-elections moves on apace, with three contests on the 11th, and no fewer than five on the 18th.

The BNP's performance on the 11th can be summed up very easily. There was no performance. Like Solidarity at an Industrial Tribunal. Like Dickie Barnbrook at a London Brains Trust. Like Nick Griffin at a charitable function. They didn't show up! And so the voters of Harrogate, Guildford and Guisborough (North Yorkshire) were able to elect their representatives (two Lib Dems, one Conservative) without the distraction of the BNP sideshow. (Interestingly the Harrogate ward had suffered a BNP candidate in the recent past; more evidence of the "churn" which is so damaging to the party.)

On the 18th there were five contests: Leeds, two in Suffolk (one County Council, one District Council, in the same area), a seat in Pembrokeshire, and the Glasgow City Council ward vacated by the SNP victor in the recent Glasgow East parliamentary by-election.

The good people of Pembrokeshire and Suffolk were left alone by the BNP (interesting that their recruitment "success" at the Pembrokeshire Show, much trumpeted on the website, didn't result in their being able to field a candidate). Mr Darby's Quiet Revolution sleeps on...

The Leeds by-election was intriguing, being a ward held by the Greens with a substantial majority. They held the seat, but with a hugely reduced majority as the Lib Dems surged through to second place. The BNP finished fourth with 12.7% of the vote, just ahead of the Conservatives and with the Alliance 4 Green Socialism behind them. From our perspective a worrying result. For the BNP to take over 12% in a seat with a wide choice of alternatives, and at least two parties mounting energetic campaigns, indicates a troubling level of electoral support.

But Glasgow was, frankly, an absolute disaster for the BNP. In an alternative vote election (the sort-of PR system used in Scottish local government by-elections) they polled just 73 votes, one behind the "Solidarity - Tommy Sheridan" candidate. It amounted to 1.4% of the vote! I somehow doubt that their Glasgow campaign will get much prominence on the BNP website!

Finally, I need to mention a Town Council by-election in Evesham, which was "graced" by a BNP candidate, because this one might be featured by their website, and claimed as further evidence of the Quiet Revolution.

The BNP came third, and took 18.6% of the vote. So far, so bad. BUT, before we despair (and they rejoice, and anticipate multiple MEPs), consider the following:

1. There were only three candidates (so, to put it another way, they came last);
2. It was a Town Council by-election (i.e. an urban parish council), and neither the Lib Dems nor Labour bothered to contest the vacancy;
3. The turnout was a miserable 11% (which reflects the significance of the event), so the proportion of the electorate who felt sufficiently motivated to go out and vote BNP was...er...2.04%. Which is about the proportion who declare for the BNP in opinion polls, and certainly won't achieve electoral success, even in a European Election party list system.

Next Thursday (25th) sees eight by-elections, with the BNP fielding just one candidate - in a Hampstead ward of the London Borough of Camden where there is every indication that they will again fare dismally.

Across September in total there will have been 18 by-elections - the BNP will have contested just five. Mr Darby? Are you waving...or just drowning?

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

There were four byelections due to be held on September 4th. One was unopposed (Conservative), and one in deepest West Sussex seems to have vanished (perhaps they're still counting !!).

Two results are to hand; and both featured BNP candidates. The first was in a Melton Mowbray ward of Melton District Council in East Leicestershire, an urban - and relatively deprived - area in a broadly affluent and rural part of Britain. It was a ward with some history of BNP activity, their having taken a share of around 28-29% of the vote in May 2007 (precise figures are difficult in multi-member elections). And of course the East Midlands has probably been the BNP's most effective region electorally in recent times, even after the purging of Graham and her Decembrist allies.

My initial reaction to the result was one of shock - Labour 314, BNP 236, Conservative 177. That is too, too close for comfort. However, the figures repay closer attention. The percentages were 43.2%, 32.5% and 24.3%. If Labour can poll 43.2%, even in their present state of national unpopularity, then they will take some beating. For the BNP to overtake that figure the Conservative share would need to fall to 13.5% or lower. Equally, if just 30 BNP voters switched to the Tories then the BNP would fall to third place!

Sources close to the far-right suggest that Labour ran an effective polling day organisation. Good! Now, if the Conservatives could be persuaded to up their game in the ward as well the BNP could find themselves increasingly marginalised.

Oh, and the change in share of the vote from May 2007 is also significant, if difficult to calculate (!) because of the multiple candidacies that time round. Basically the Labour share dropped by around 4.5%, BNP up 4%, Conservatives up around 0.5%. Given what has happened to Labour over the past 18 months, and that this was one of the key BNP byelection prospects this year, the far-right must be disappointed that their advance was so limited.

To summarise - a worrying and depressing result, BUT even so with results like this it's becoming hard to see where the next BNP byelection gain is going to appear!

The other byelection was in Barrow, and again offered an opportunity for the BNP. A ward with a strong Independent tradition (36% in May) and no Lib Dem candidate. What happened? The Conservatives held the seat with an increased majority and 50% of the vote; the Labour share dipped a little (--2.5%), the Peoples Party came third, and the BNP came last with 15.1%. Not the derisory vote we prefer to see, but a long, long, long way from any prospect of power or influence.

A Quiet Month is August

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

August is traditionally a quiet month for local authority by-elections.  Councillors, activists, election officials and the public tend to like to have a break, and so by-elections are - if at all possible - deferred to a more suitable time.

So there were only six by-elections to principal area authorities (PAA) in August 2008, and here's my round-up of what happened and the significance of the BNP's showing.

Well, their ability to field candidates was up on recent times at 50%; but at three out of six that's hardly significant! On the first Thursday of the month (the 7th) they failed to field candidates in Richmondshire (Yorkshire) and (perhaps more significantly and surprisingly) in Nottingham, but were represented in the slightly odd Maldon North by-election in Essex.

This was a seat previously won by the curiously-named Independent Maldon Democratic Alliance, who did not field a candidate on this occasion. Only one of the major parties stood (the Conservatives), and they were joined by the Greens, BNP and two Independents. With no Labour, Lib Dem or UKIP candidates the BNP might have expected to do rather better than the fourth-placed 12.9% they achieved, finishing behind one of the Independents and with only around half the vote of the Green candidate!

The only by-election on 14th August was in Cilfynydd, deep in the South Wales Valleys. Six candidates, no BNP - a Labour gain from Lib Dem (!). Labour having to regain a seat like this is surprising enough, but even more astonishing was that the Greens, polling just 14 votes, still avoided last place, which went to the Conservatives with 12 (1.6%)!

On the 21st there was a town council election in Wiltshire but no PAA by-elections.

And so to the two by-elections of the 28th August. In Shrewsbury the BNP had a tilt at the Pimhill ward with one Helen Foulkes. [Sources tell me that three of the four recent BNP candidates in the Shrewsbury area have been drawn from the one family, Ms Foulkes included. If true it suggests a narrow membership base.] The BNP website covered this by-election quite extensively, partly because of the candidacy of one Ioan Jones as an Independent despite said Mr Jones having previously stood in the Labour cause. "Are Labour so scared that they are flying under false colours?" asked the BNP. Who cares: Mr Jones ended up with 16 votes, the Conservatives just held off the Lib Dems (341 v 331), and the BNP got just 59 votes (7.9%).

The Rotherham Council by-election has already been mentioned on this site, so I shall try to avoid covering familiar ground. It is worth remembering that this by-election was called by the BNP (i.e. they forced a by-election in the holiday period for whatever reason). Presumably they thought they had a reasonable chance. There is little point calling an election if you are not a significant player. The outcome, however, must have been a bitter disappointment - third place, 19.2% of the vote. Too many votes, and too high a percentage (from our perspective) but well below what they must have been anticipating.

So, a summary for the month. Six by-elections, only one seat changing hands (Lib Dem to Labour). Candidates by party : Conservative 6, Lib Dem 4, Labour 3, BNP 3, Green 2, UKIP 2, Plaid Cymru 1, Independents 5.

BNP - no wins, no second places. Crude average share of the vote 13.3%.

September will be a different matter - 20 by-elections to contest (18 England, 1 Scotland, 1 Wales). On the 4th alone there are two significant BNP interventions, in Melton Mowbray (E Midlands) and Barrow (N West), and a chance to assess how the land lies, and how best to see off the low-life of the racist right.

The Accounts (5) : "a slender merit of providing cosmetic comfort"

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

The previous articles by Iliacus regarding the BNP accounts are below:

The Accounts (1): First Impressions
The Accounts (2): "We wuz robbed"
The Accounts (3): Figure Skating
The Accounts (4): "and for my next trick"

I have recently been reading, as one does, a history of the Neath and Brecon Railway. This was a fairly insignificant railway company in South Wales, operating - oddly enough - between Neath and Brecon! It may not immediately seem of any relevance to the cause of anti-fascism except that its financial affairs (to which I might return in a future article) echoed those of a certain far-right political party of the present day.

In particular I was taken by the following comments by the authors, written in 2005 in respect of accounts published in the 1860s:

"The balance sheet for year end 1866...is tantalising in what it leaves unsaid and without further figures...it is only part of the picture. This statement falls short of the standards of reporting required today and its odd assortment of balances have the slender merit of providing cosmetic comfort to the casual observer."

What a splendid turn of phrase - and so appropriate to the subject of this series of articles, the 2007 BNP Accounts!

In this final article I want to concentrate on two areas - the sales of party publications (Identity and Voice of Freedom) and the Trafalgar Club. I will start with the publications, and a quick review of what they comprise. Voice of Freedom is a monthly tabloid; the front page normally carries an emotive lead story related to the evils of immigration while the other three pages are full of accounts of local meetings raising unprecedented levels of donations, adoration of the leader, and plenty of opportunities for readers to send money to the BNP for various items of tat! Identity is the party's exploration of the theoretical principles of nationalism (i.e. it's full of middle-aged white men ranting about the evils of the modern world!)

My comments are based on an interpretation of the way these items are dealt with financially. I have to make reasonable assumptions, which may be rash in the context of BNP accounting. Those assumptions are as follows:

• that intitial printing costs are met by the party nationally;
• that sales are then made either directly or via branches, and the latter therefore appear in the accounts of the RAU (Regional Accounting Unit);
• that expenditure by the RAU (in buying copies) is balanced in the income column of the National Accounts (as supplier).

Of course, being the BNP, anything is possible!

So, let's look at the performance in selling this stuff in 2007, and a comparison with 2006, starting with Identity.  In 2006 printing cost £30,000 - by 2007 it was £34,000; allowing for inflation this implies a small increase in print runs. Income in '06 was nearly £45,000 (a surplus of around £15,000 but see below); in '07 income nationally fell to £32,000 (a deficit of £2,000). A bad enough trend, but there's worse to come [worse for the BNP I emphasise; I think it's great!]. In 2006 the RAU (i.e. the branches) spent nearly £17,000 buying Identity - and raised £11,000 by selling them, wiping out a fair chunk of the National Accounts surplus. In 2007 the RAU spent over £22,000 on copies of Identity - and raised just £8,000 from selling them!

So in 2006 the branches "lost" £5,500 selling Identity - and in 2007 they "lost" over £14,000 doing so. In 2006 just over a third of copies were unloaded by the national party onto the branches - by 2007 that proportion had nearly doubled!

Let's have a look at Voice of Freedom (VoF). In 2006 the party spent £37,000 printing copies - this fell in 2007 to just over £32,000. Perhaps Mr Collett negotiated a special deal, but to this cynical observer it suggests a fall in the print run. Certainly the fall in national sales, from £66,000 to £57,000 suggests that copies weren't flying off the metaphorical shelves! And when we get to branch level, the trend identified with Identity is repeated, and then some! 

In 2006 the branches were billed for just over half of all VoF sales (£34,000 - 52% of the total). By 2007 the branches were being billed for over £52,000 of sales - an extraordinary 91% of the total! And this wasn't because they were finding it any easier to sell the damned things! Sales at RAU level fell from £26,000 in '06 to under £20,000 in '07.

So overall, in 2006 the party as a whole made a surplus of £9,217 from Identity and £20,580 from VoF.  In 2007 Identity lost £16,186 and even VoF recorded a deficit of £7,641. At branch (or RAU) level both made a loss in both years, a sign of the local membership subsidising the party centrally. But the scale of that subsidy has rocketed.

In 2006 the RAU lost £5,500 on Identity - in 2007 it was £14,215.
On VoF the RAU lost £8,698 in 2006 - in 2007 this shot up to a £32,515 loss.

In 2006 local branches, through Identity and VoF, subsidised 'HQ' to the tune of £19,715. In 2007 it was £46,730! And what will it be in 2008 at that rate of increase?

In the context of the earlier articles in this series there is a clear picture emerging of a party sliding into financial difficulties from the centre, and frantically plugging the gap by increasingly sucking money from the local organisations. The evidence for this is not just the growing subsidy through Identity and VoF sales identified in this article, but also the increasing 'loan' from the RAU to the national party set out in article number 4.

And so to a brief word on the Trafalgar Club. This is basically a dining club which, in principle, differs little from similar schemes run by other parties. In this case, in return for a substantial donation, you have the opportunity to enjoy a meal (of debatable quality) followed by a speech from Nick Griffin. Astonishingly, some people actually take up this offer!

What is strange is the way this is handled in the Accounts. It is, we are told in the Chairman's Introduction" a "body ... administered by this department [Administration] ... in order to avoid the danger of 'all eggs in one basket' the National Treasurer is not permitted to handle this body's finances" but it is subject to "full external audit".

This is a very strange arrangement, as well as being pretty offensive to a treasurer who is allowed to handle everything else but not - for some reason - the Trafalgar Club. By external audit they are presumably referring to the audit of accounts prepared by Silver and Co - but they are reporting on Accounts prepared by...the National Treasurer, who is "not permitted to handle this body's finances"! So are the Trafalgar Club's transactions contained within the BNP's Accounts or not? And if so, where? And if not, then how are they subject to "external audit"?

There are malcontents within the BNP (or recently expelled therefrom) who allege that the proceeds of this Club have too close a relationship to Nick Griffin's back pocket - there is nothing in the BNP's accounts to disprove those suggestions!