Thursday 13 May 2010

Couple more points about that BNP 'breakthrough'

The BNP - or at least Nick Griffin, who may no longer be in control of the party he supposedly heads - have been bragging about how the election was a breakthrough for them:
* Total votes cast 563,743. This compares with 192,746 votes secured by the BNP in 117 seats in 2005. The nearest comparison historically is with 1979, when the National Front fought the now easily broken record of 303 seats, from which it garnered a feeble 191,719 votes

* There were a record number of deposits saved. This would undoubtedly have been even higher were it not for us missing out on crossing this important threshold in a number of seats by the votes that were undoubtedly lost in each constituency thanks to the confusion and concern caused by the unforgiveable sabotage of our website. (1)

Well done, Little Nicky. Well done. You forgot to mention, however, that the tripling of the total vote was achieved through tripling the number of candidates fielded, from 119 in 2005, to 338 in 2010.

In 2005, the BNP won 192,850 votes (2), and in 2010, 563,743 (3) - with, of course, one seat still to go. A few passionate moments with a calculator reveals that in 2005, they won 1619.7 votes per candidate, and in 2010, won 1667.8 votes per candidate. Not much change really, for all the fuss and noise.

Not so much more people supporting the BNP, as BNP supporters getting someone to vote for. The truth, Little Nicky, is that you weren't building more votes, you were just failing in more constituencies.

As for Little Nicky's claim that the party saved more deposits than in 2005, that is even more nonsensical. Remember, they stood almost three times as many candidates than in 2005. Obviously, if you stand more candidates, you'll probably save more deposits. Equally, you could point out that they lost more than ever before.

Here's the maths, based on the BNP's own figures - in 2005, the BNP stood 119 candidates and saved 34 deposits. In 2010, they stood 338 candidates and saved 72 deposits (4). So in 205 they managed to save 29% of their deposits. In 2010, the rate was 21%. So, in fact, their performance was worse than in 2005.

And what is incredible, what is jaw-droppingly unbelievably insane is that the Electoral Administration Act, 2006 changed the rules between 2005 and 2010, reducing the percentage of votes a candidate needs to win back his or her deposit from 5% to 2%.

They MADE IT EASIER to save your deposit; and the BNP managed to save far fewer of them. What does that tell you? In about 80% of the constituencies where they stood, LESS THAT 2% of the voters cast their ballot for the BNP.

This is a breakthrough. Well, something certainly got broken. The BNP.
1 - "Britain Has Entered a New Political Era — Post Election Analysis by BNP Leader Nick Griffin," by BNP News. Posted on the BNP website, 10th of May, 2010. (http://bnp.org.uk/?q=news/britain-has-entered-new-political-era-%E2%80%94-post-election-analysis-bnp-leader-nick-griffin)
2 - "BNP sees increase in total votes," unattributed article. Published by the BBC, 6th of May, 2005.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4519347.stm)
3 - "2010 election results," cortesy of the BBC, as of 13th of May, 2010. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/)
4 - "Back up and at them," posted by the BNP's national youth Officer. Published on Young BNP blog, 9th of May, 2010.(http://ybnp.blogspot.com/2010/05/back-up-and-at-them.html)

No comments:

Unsurprising

 From the Guardian : The  Observer  understands that as well as backing away from its £28bn a year commitment on green investment (while sti...