Does the BNP have a more legitimate electoral mandate than the Greens?

The Greens are seen as a legitimate part of the political spectrum, with a fairly transparent agenda. And yet, their electoral legitimacy, in terms of percentage vote and lost deposits is the same or sometimes less than the BNP, and their pull ahead of the Greens becomes more apparent as we move forward in time, especially since New Labour gained power.

Here are some of the facts based on General Election Data:

1987:
BNP fielded 2 candidates and lost both deposits
The Greens fielded 134 candidates and lost ALL deposits
Percentage of votes in contested seats was Green1.35, BNP, 0.53%

1992:
BNP fielded 13 candidates and lost all 13 deposits
Greens fielded 253 candidates and lost all 253 deposits
Percentage of vote in seats contested, Green 1.27%, BNP 1.05%

1997:
BNP: fielded 56 candidates and lost 53 deposits
Green: fielded 95 candidates and lost ALL deposits.
The two parties' percentage of the vote in contested seats was roughly equal, the BNP doing slightly better:
Percentage of vote in seats contested, Green 1.344%, BNP 1.358%

It is interesting that, with all their resources and apparent activist base, The Greens have failed to make an impact during general elections. Not even a tiny one.

From here, after the election of New Labour, it starts to get interesting!

2001:
BNP fielded 33 candidates and lost 28 deposits.
Greens fielded 145 and lost 135 deposits
Percentage of vote in seats contested, Green 2.747%, BNP 3.917

2007:
BNP fielded 119 candidates and lost 85 deposits.
Greens fielded 203 candidates and lost 179 deposits.
Percentage of votes in seats contested, Green 3.29, BNP 4.19

The Greens increased their percentage of the National Vote by 0.4%
The BNP increased their percentage of the National Vote by 0.5%


My contention, in answer to the strapline, is Yes. The Greens are either stagnating or going backwards and the BNP are gaining by the year. They have done this with less than half the expenditure and less than half number of candidates.

All of this has taken place during a Labour Administration. Make of it what you will.

(Data compiled from http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge05/results.htm)

UPDATE1
An anonymous commenter has reminded me of a factor I missed completely, and that is the almost blanket daily coverage of Green Issues and the hysterical MSM obsession with Climate Change (Remember they used to call it Global Warming, until the last ten year's figures showed that the Earth was actually cooling down?) A fringe Party has never had so much free coverage and done so little with it, and conversely, Issues that the BNP build their power base on, such as the rise of Islamic influence and immigration get sod all.

Meanwhile, Tom Harris is bemoaning the mere presence of the BNP in the political spectrum. All for democracy, eh, Tom? Unless you happen to disagree with it?

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wrinkled, it's not particularly baffling.

Much of the public view the current shower of shit in charge (and the other showers of shit waiting in the wings to take over) as liars. Complete and utter liars.

Therefore, if these liars tell you NOT to do something, like not voting for the BNP, more and more will do exactly the opposite.

Similarly, as for the Greens, the more these liars push the 'green' agenda, i.e. climate change, the more the electorate switches off and turns against them.

Maturecheese said...

The BNP are bloody well getting my vote. The rest are nothing but a self serving,corrupt,lying,Islam loving,EU worshipping shower.

What country we have left,and that is very little as anyone and his dog can vote in our elections,has actually gone to the dogs.

Having declared the above,I suppose I'd better expect the door to be kicked in any dawn soon.

strapworld said...

I have met so many people who havesaid they will vote BNP.

When I point out that they are SOCIALISTS they do believe me! As they are classed as Right Wing!
So I remind them of the Nazis The National Socialists!, but they come back. "You tell me a party that speaks up for the English" "You tell me a party that speaks up against the amount of immigration and the total change of many of our towns and inner cities into mini Pakistan and the like" and I cannot answer them!

But what are the 'major' parties going to do when Pakistan is taken over by the Taliban, and we are facing hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis fleeing that country?

This could happen in the next few weeks/months and the BNP will reap the harvest of votes!

Hand on heart could you trust the Labour. Lib Dems or Conservatives if they said they would limit the number of Pakistanis?

We are facing our own armageddon as a nation and as a people.

Thatsnews said...

I seem to recall there was in effect, a Green Party MP elected in a round about way.

In Wales there was a joint PC/Green candidate. The PC leadership was not keen on it, and the MP (can't recall his name) sat as a PC MP.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Thanks for the comments.
Mature Cheese. We live in a democracy. But being discriminated against (with official sanction) because you belong to a party that has electoral legitimacy makes it look to me that the real bad guys are those who are in power.

Strapworld. I don't fancy a sudden influx of Pakistani asylum seekers either, and your scenario seems chillingly credible to me.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Thats News. I believe Plaid have done some sort of deal with the Greens to field joint candidates.

James said...

So the BNP have 55 councillors, one London Assembly member, and one ballerina? Councillor numbers: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/the-real-bnp/BNP-councillors.php

The Greens in England and Wales, conversely, have 120 councillors (not counting parish), 2 London Assembly members, 2 MEPs, plus two MSPs and eight councillors in Scotland and an MLA in Northern Ireland. http://camden.greenparty.org.uk/about.html

Your premise, that the BNP are ahead of the Greens, it is flawed.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Thank you for your input, James. I was specifically discussing the National picture. But the facts remain. I agree the subject is complex.

Part of the equation is that the Greens field far more candidates in far more regions and consequently appear to do better, but the underlying fact is, pound for pound, they get less value for money and seat for seat, they do less well, and in a straight fight, get a lower percentage of the vote. This is why I deliberately cited percentages in Seats Contested, which I think more accurately represents the true picture.

Wrinkled Weasel said...

Strapworld's prediction has resonance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5279418/Up-to-500000-flee-as-Pakistan-prepares-to-take-on-the-Taliban.html

AProlefrom1984 said...

There's more to the Greens than climate change/global warming. the main problem is the voting system. if we have a fairer system, ie, PR, both parties should garner about 10 - 15% each as that's broadly the support they enjoy. With the current system, turnout would keep falling. Wonder what would happen if less than 20% of us turned up to vote in a general election?