The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
i would agree with you about most parties' constitutions. however, the bnp constitution has for some time been designed with the purpose in mind of nick griffin not suffering a coup. indeed, one of the points made by butler was that the constitution had been amended to strengthen griffin's position during the recent litigation with the equalities commission.
i think that the question of the party's internal organisation is one which will run and run until griffin departs or someone manages to oust him. it's an issue which has resonance for members who cannot be advanced unless griffin says so. he can appoint and dismiss national officers. the advisory council has no teeth. if someone joins and does good work, there is no means for them to advance past the (relatively) local stage before they need griffin's approval to go further. for the majority of members, and activists, this is probably not a problem. for the people who will be the bnp's leadership in the future, however, it is. do the dissidents leave or do they hold their breath waiting for griffin? i think that the constitution sets quite clear bounds to the party's ability to perpetuate itself, as prospective leadership candidates are removed from positions of influence on griffin's say-so.
Sounds the same as the SWPs. Do WAG have a constitution?