Griffin and BNP strategy

[audiotech]

Almost right, it's gone up in two. We need to integrate that with a wider picture though. Across that same period it's contested about 60 seats:

In seats they're contesting for the first time they're averaging 11%
In seats they're returning to they're averaging 20.43%
Across them all they're averaging 13.68%.

Now what that might well show is that drops in seats they're re-contesting doesn't simply mean that they're being blown out of the water or losing support once they've been exposed - what it possibly shows it that they've achieved a very good first time vote in many seats maybe on the back of a specific local grievance producing a protest vote (i.e the boston bypass vote), around 23-30%, and that in follow up elections rather then just disappearing after the various exposes and don't vote BNP campaigns they're consolidating around the 17-20% - in fact average drop is just 4.8%. On top of that seats where they picked up around 10% first time round they're now better able to jump up to the same level. And the national average has not been driven down by these campaigns either, after a few years of being solidly at 12.3% it's now actually gone up again, despite a bad run of specific results. It means that their appeal is not being impacted on by these approaches and they're steadily developing a broader base.

You might be right, but there again possibly wrong?

 

[audiotech]

Quite a lot of that "98% of the population" don't have the vote, you prawn.
And you're making a rather large assumption if you believe that a "don't vote BNP" strategy is chiefly responsible for the low (but increasing) BNP vote. It's far more likely to be down to a combination of social and political conditions, some of which are currently in flux and may therefore allow the BNP a greater "in" than previously.

And here's another possible example of what I call "reporter bias". If you approach someone in the street and/or on the doorstep and ask them a question such as "why do you support...?", you're likely to get the answer that they (the person giving the answer) feel will be most acceptable to you, regardless of whether it's actually an honest answer to the question.
I don't think you can draw any hard and fast conclusions from such relatively thin material.

I'm not.

It's clear I was referring to the voting population you mollusc.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I've argued above why i'm sure that it's had no or utterly minimal effects - you think i'm wrong and have said so a number of times. You ask me for evidence to support my case, i can point to electoral figures, membership figures, growth in national profiles, growth in number of candidates across all elections and in elected candidates across all but parliamentary elections, growth in number of media appearances, growth in national profile, recognition of leading figures, increase in importance in influencing the public political agenda, normalisation of their presence as part of the accepted political scene, increase in number of candidates re-elected, growth in territorial areas in which they've won elections or achieved good votes, consolidation of votes/branhce/members in areas where they've not won, huge increase in the number of areas where they've came second. You don't think this demonstrates that the expose them model is not working. What's your evidence?

And no, i've argued the exact opposite point, what have you two been drinking tonight? I argue that the 'expose them' model simply does not and cannot deal with the social issues that are driving the far-right vote that you mention - i even re-emphasise that quite clearly above. My point is that it's these social issues that need to be concentrated on not they should be ignored.

rofl. You are a dishonest with yourself, as much as anyone else.

 

[butchersapron]

You might be right, but there again possibly wrong?

Seriously, that's your reply? No alternative scenarios offered? No investigation of the stats? Nothing?

 

[audiotech]

By "consistent" do you mean "a consistent ongoing presence in the community(s) in question", or "we consistently visited the community every fortnight, plus whenever there was a racist incident"?
I ask because I know which of those was the norm in my part of SW London, and it never failed to piss off locals to have preachy badge-wearing student socialists descending on them to proclaim their imminent emancipation from the horrors of Nazism!

The community in question is working class and don't do 'preachy'.

I wasn't 'visiting' either.

 

[TremulousTetra]

You might be right, but there again possibly wrong?

What are you drinking, butchers cant be wrong.......... EVER!

 

[TremulousTetra]

Be fair though, he reads better than you write.

If you didn't have your tongue so far butcher's arse, you'd have noticed, it was balders writing.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Almost right, it's gone up in two. We need to integrate that with a wider picture though. Across that same period it's contested about 60 seats:

In seats they're contesting for the first time they're averaging 11%
In seats they're returning to they're averaging 20.43%
Across them all they're averaging 13.68%.

Now what that might well show is that drops in seats they're re-contesting doesn't simply mean that they're being blown out of the water or losing support once they've been exposed - what it possibly shows it that they've achieved a very good first time vote in many seats maybe on the back of a specific local grievance producing a protest vote (i.e the boston bypass vote), around 23-30%, and that in follow up elections rather then just disappearing after the various exposes and don't vote BNP campaigns they're consolidating around the 17-20% - in fact average drop is just 4.8%. On top of that seats where they picked up around 10% first time round they're now better able to jump up to the same level. And the national average has not been driven down by these campaigns either, after a few years of being solidly at 12.3% it's now actually gone up again, despite a bad run of specific results. It means that their appeal is not being impacted on by these approaches and they're steadily developing a broader base.

Seriously, that's your reply? No alternative scenarios offered? No investigation of the stats? Nothing?

rofl. It just doesn't compute does it butch? You don't have clue what's being said to you.

 

[butchersapron]

Are there any less important threads you can go and embarrass yourself on with this childish non-politics? I'm not interested in it.

 

[audiotech]

Seriously, that's your reply? No alternative scenarios offered? No investigation of the stats? Nothing?

I'm having me tea.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm not.

It's clear I was referring to the voting population you mollusc.

No it isn't, you shrivelled sea cucumber!

 

[ViolentPanda]

The community in question is working class and don't do 'preachy'.

I wasn't 'visiting' either.

I'm glad to hear it, but "parachuting" is still a tactic used by UAF etc, and it shouldn't be. It doesn't work, whoever uses it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If you didn't have your tongue so far butcher's arse, you'd have noticed, it was balders writing.

So there's no egregious spelling errors or indecipherable wibblings in any of your posts on this thread, then, Mr facepalm?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm having me tea.

Bit early.

Are you middle class or summat?

 

[audiotech]

I'm glad to hear it, but "parachuting" is still a tactic used by UAF etc, and it shouldn't be. It doesn't work, whoever uses it.

To be frank, that seems increasingly now to be seen as a right load of old bollocks.

 

[audiotech]

Bit early.

Are you middle class or summat?

Steak pie and chips with gravy yum.

 

[The Black Hand]

An interesting little fact series of figures - prior to 1997, i think the far-right in their entire historical existence had only ever saved a single deposit in a parliamentary election - recent results and deposits saved:

1992 - 0
1997 - 3
2001 - 5
2005 - 34

Now, does that support the suggestion that trying to associate the BNP with the nazis and the holocaust etc is becoming more effective or less effective as we move further away from WW2 and the sort of post-war anti-fascism that had this approach as it's centre-piece?

Please, please do say they'd have have 100 without.

You overplay the 'great BNP role', and you are not saying (are you?) that the BNP vote would not have risen further without opposition.

I think it is a non dialectical, or silly position if you want, to consider that they (Searchlight/Hope Not Hate) have had no effect. Action, reaction, its basic really... You have no evidence for your assertions anyway.

I think it is stupid to assert that Hope Not Hate has had no effect, or even acknowledge the possibility that they have had, however limited, an effect (that is just anti intellectualism).

 

[The Black Hand]

Er..yeah? And? In what way does that mean he's not posted up any evidence to back up his opinion? In what does it mean that you didn't ask him to provide evidence to back up his opinion whilst asking me to provide evidence?

You started the point with the asertion that it is not working, it is therefore incumbent on you to provide evidence of this. YOU HAVE NONE.

Your list of the BNP successes is not proof that Hope Not Hate have not prevented the BNP growing faster than they have if opposition (ie Hope not Hate not active) was lacking. You haven't proved your side of the argument at all.

 

[The Black Hand]

Is post #2927 addressed to me?

In local elections since June, the BNP has seen it's share of the vote fall in 16 out of 17 seats it has recontested.

The recent vote in Primrose (S. Tyneside MBC) on Feb 25 did see the BNP receive a high percentage (27.87%) of those that voted, however it's vote did fall by 5.06 percent, from 32.93% in 2008. Still a question mark about what happened there, as there were a couple of independents standing to consider?

Yes you are right MC5, where there is opposition and choice, the evidence in Jarrow points that the BNP vote falls.

The BNP vote falling after their first time out in wards is also happening frequently as you say.

 

[The Black Hand]

I don't think the lack of people voting bnp necessarily has anything to do with the UAF etc. Many people don't even know who the uaf are

But they do know who HOPE NOT HATE is because the Daily Mirror have given them shed loads of publicity.

 

[The Black Hand]

Almost right, it's gone up in two. We need to integrate that with a wider picture though. Across that same period it's contested about 60 seats:

In seats they're contesting for the first time they're averaging 11%
In seats they're returning to they're averaging 20.43%
Across them all they're averaging 13.68%.

Now what that might well show is that drops in seats they're re-contesting doesn't simply mean that they're being blown out of the water or losing support once they've been exposed - what it possibly shows it that they've achieved a very good first time vote in many seats maybe on the back of a specific local grievance producing a protest vote (i.e the boston bypass vote), around 23-30%, and that in follow up elections rather then just disappearing after the various exposes and don't vote BNP campaigns they're consolidating around the 17-20% - in fact average drop is just 4.8%. On top of that seats where they picked up around 10% first time round they're now better able to jump up to the same level. And the national average has not been driven down by these campaigns either, after a few years of being solidly at 12.3% it's now actually gone up again, despite a bad run of specific results. It means that their appeal is not being impacted on by these approaches and they're steadily developing a broader base.

These are just figures. Where's your data source? Without knowledge of how many wards you are using, when those wards were contested and so on you could be and probably are confusing the issue. Meanwhile the data I provided a while ago WAS checkable and is different to these figures.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But they do know who HOPE NOT HATE is because the Daily Mirror have given them shed loads of publicity.

Because everyone reads the Mirror, don't they?

 

[tbaldwin]

Are there any less important threads you can go and embarrass yourself on with this childish non-politics? I'm not interested in it.

Non politics a great term for anybody who doesnt respect your erm er very authorative opinions.
Your arguements on the effect of Hope not Hates effect are not exactly the work of a political mastermind are they?
And you still havent come up with any credible idea of a political alternative.
Still have faith in the IWCA do you?

 

[TremulousTetra]

So there's no egregious spelling errors or indecipherable wibblings in any of your posts on this thread, then, Mr facepalm?

look, you know that I am paralysed from the neck down. my hands are paralysed. That I have to rely upon the speech recognition. And this doesn't always work properly, so I have to rely on typing with my knuckles. Also speech-recognition etc, interferes with my trail of thought. and, yeah my own spelling aint that good. but you fuck up because your constantly licking butchers arse. just take your tongue out of your leaders arse. it aint very anarchist.

 

[TremulousTetra]

I don't think the lack of people voting bnp necessarily has anything to do with the UAF etc. Many people don't even know who the uaf are

your like a cult you lot. bnp is known as nazis by many people, where this message has come from is clearly the anti fascist anl etc. even if the people do not perceive directly from the whom it came, they still believe the bnp are nazi, and that will play a part in their voting decision. obvious.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Are there any less important threads you can go and embarrass yourself on with this childish non-politics? I'm not interested in it.

No one has tried harder, for longer, to have a proper political conversation with you. But I've given up. It's pointless, your that for up your own arse, you're the one man cult, worshiping yourself.

 

[audiotech]

Rmp3, you used to be so polite in the face of adversity?

 

[The39thStep]

Yes you are right MC5, where there is opposition and choice, the evidence in Jarrow points that the BNP vote falls.

The BNP vote falling after their first time out in wards is also happening frequently as you say.

sorry TBH but where/what was this choice in Jarrow?

 

[TremulousTetra]

Rmp3, you used to be so polite in the face of adversity?

The ironic thing is, i still am when talking to the Nazi's, and their appologists. I just cant be bothered any longer with the u75 cultist sectarian fuckwits like butch. he's so right, he cant even read.

given up. don't usually post on here anymore.

 

[butchersapron]

Utter rubbish, you've been chasing after me with tears in your eyes for over half a decade with this childish nonsense now, despite me making it plain to you time after time that i'm not going to take it or you seriously and instead would just largely ignore you. This little exchange over the last two days has reminded me exactly why - in the space of a few short posts you managed to to impute at least two positions to me that were the 100% precise opposite of what i've long argued and you chucked in an attempted race-based smear as well. Nevertheless, i persevered bravely on and made serious post after serious post, all the points of which you ignored in favour of starting up the tears again. Now i'm really really not interested.