Standing against the BNP
Francis Maude and Tories generally seem to have decided that the Liberal Democrats are bad because we don’t stand against the BNP as much as the Tories.
I’m confused about their logic in this, unless its simply a crude way of trying to link the LibDems and BNP.
Looking at this from the point of view of ensuring the BNP win as few seats as possible, surely its better not to split the anti-BNP vote? Doesn’t this mean that LibDems not standing is a good thing from that point of view? (assuming that there is opposition to the BNP).
I can only conclude that harping on about this is mud slinging in the hope that some might stick. I suppose we should be flattered, they’re taking notice of the party ;)
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:18 am
“Looking at this from the point of view of ensuring the BNP win as few seats as possible, surely its better not to split the anti-BNP vote?”
This view is basically a myth - of the first batch of seats won by the BNP over half of them were in seats where there was no Lib Dem candidate. By contrast BNP successes have been limited in places like Pendle (though the BNP won one seat last May there) and Oldham where competition between Labour and the Lib Dems is pretty fierce.
There is also a fairly strong correlation between areas the BNP do well in and where the Lib Dems aren’t particularly strong. The BNP also advise people to target areas where there is less opposition political activity.
Advice - at least when I wrote it - was for Lib Dems to stand against the BNP where possible. Our lack of candidates is probably more a reflection of the weakness of the party in those areas.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Our rate of contesting BNP seats is over 15% above our national average, so we are not at fault at all. The BNP typically chooses areas with few other strong parties, so it is likely that many of the areas are those where we would never normally stand a candidate anyway.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
I do love the way we are supposed to be mind readers and know where the BNP are going to stand.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
What Hywel said. While I think it would indeed be nice if the Lib Dems stood more candidates than we do, the fact is it isn’t we who decline to stand against the BNP - it is the BNP who decline to stand against US.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Of course, if one accepts the idea that certain areas tend towards certain parties (this is a Labour ward; that is a Tory borough; etc.) it is a matter of simple logic that places where the BNP are likely to pick up votes are about as far removed from natural Liberal territory as possible.
OTOH, I wonder if the best way to combat the BNP is to ensure that there is a genuinely passionate political debate between the major parties. Give the people a choice and let them see a rigous contest and they will give us (or our saner political opponents) their support.
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 am
Since not one other major political party will admit that we have a serious problem with Third World immigration and Islamic fundamentalists flexing their muscles what the hell do you expect?
They might be unpopular loud and utterly Un PC but they are beginning to make the other parties sound like liars and fools after 7/7, the cartoon protests,undercover mosques (Dispatches Channel 4) death to the Pope and the antics of the RoP wherever they colonise in large numbers and create self styled ghettoes.
You can ignore it, call those who dont ignore it racists but you cant fool everyone forever?
You created fed and watered the modern BNP.
The Lib Dems, Nu Labour, Nu Labour Lite(the Tories) and the other hawkers of failed multicult policies on the fringes made them popular by ignoring the dissenters of this melting pot.
They aren’t going away, even if only a protest vote, they will be rottweilers snapping at the heels of those whose heads are in the clouds.