Well, time and tide wait for no man and I’ve only made it to outlining the BNP’s prospects in what I consider to be eight of its top ten seats rather than the whole lot. Still, an analysis of prospects in Morley in Outwood was also added to the mix. So, in which other seats should we expect a strong BNP showing?
Dagenham and Rainham
So, starting with the final two of my unfinished top ten we come to Dagenham and Rainham with odds from Paddypower.com of 33/1 on the BNP winning the seat. If it does, I’ll probably have a coronary, but we should see a healthy poll for the party here. It is a new constituency so there’s nothing to go on by way of direct comparison with 2005 and I have no time to trawl through ward-level stats to gain an indicator of possible BNP support. Still, this is where the BNP have chosen to field Michael Barnbrook, brother of BNP London Assembly member Richard. Labour BNP-baiter Jon Cruddas looks likely to be the favourite, but as this is East London the BNP should do pretty well. At an absolute minimum it should be looking at 5% of the vote as an absolute minimum, but 10-15% and a third place or above would in my opinion constitute a decent showing. UKIP are also contesting Dagenham and Rainham.
Stoke-on-Trent South
BNP campaigning in Stoke-on-Trent has according to Simon Darby's blog been going well, and besides anticipating a strong vote for Simon Darby himself in Stoke-on-Trent Central we should see fellow party member Michael Coleman increase the party’s share of the vote. The BNP stood here in 1997, 2001 and 2005, increasing their total number of votes and vote share on each occasion as follows: 1.2% (568); 3.8% (1,358) and 8.7% (3,305). A share of 12% or above would be a respectable result. It’s a solid Labour seat and is likely to remain in that party’s hands. As in Dagenham and Rainham, the BNP will also be vying with UKIP for the Eurosceptic nationalist vote.
Barnsley Central
The BNP have enjoyed rapid growth in the South Yorkshire borough of Barnsley in recent years, and it’ll be well worth watching their performance here. Unlike in many of West Yorkshire’s towns and cities, Barnsley has pretty much escaped Islamic colonisation, but the locals are all aware of the fate that has befallen other Yorkshire towns such as Keighley, Halifax and Dewsbury and are keen not to have that experience repeat itself on their patch. Barnsley Central was first contested by the BNP in 2005 when they won 4.9% (1,403 votes) of the poll, but in the local elections of 2008 they polled very strongly and took second and third place in a number of wards. Barnsley Central is comprised of 8 wards, but in 2008 only half of these held elections. Nonetheless, the results in these four point to a likely significant increase in both the overall number of votes captured by the BNP today as well as a greater vote share: Central – 621 (3rd place); Cudworth – 650 (2nd place); Monk Bretton – 668 (2nd place) and Royston – 392 (3rd place). This gives a total of 2,331 from half of the constituency’s wards.
A reasonable result for BNP candidate Ian Sutton would therefore be 4,000 votes and upwards with a 14%+ share of the vote. This is solid Labour territory, but is certainly a seat in which the BNP stand an excellent chance of muscling the Conservatives into fourth place, for the latter polled only a little over 13% at the last two parliamentary elections and less than 10% in 1997. The Liberal Democrats have been only marginally more popular than the Tories, so there is an outside chance that we could see Ian Sutton taking second place. UKIP are likely to come last in fifth place.
Showing posts with label Michael Barnbrook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Barnbrook. Show all posts
Thursday, 6 May 2010
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
BNP 'Top 10' General Election Targets
On 5 April it was announced that the BNP would be fielding a record 326 candidates in the forthcoming General Election. It is likely that this total would have been even higher had it not been for the financial strain placed upon the party by the recent EHRC court case which was quite clearly brought in an attempt to destroy the BNP following its electoral success in the EU elections last June. Thankfully, this attempt has failed, but it means that the BNP will be fighting to secure representation at Westminster on a very tight budget.
In 2005 certain Labour candidates used the alleged BNP ‘threat’ in a cynical attempt to mobilise disillusioned Labour voters, persuading them to vote for a party that they no longer believed in and which long ago had abandoned them. Paradoxically, many who then cast their votes for Labour will have voted against a party – the BNP – whose policies they would have benefited from and approved of had they had been properly informed of the content of the BNP manifesto. Then, as now, the mass media were united in their hostility to the BNP, but unlike in 2005 the dissemination of information this time around has been democratised. Thanks to the growth in public internet access and the burgeoning of political blogs and online social media, the stranglehold of the National Union of Journalists and its explicit guidelines enforcing distorted reporting has to a certain extent been circumvented. Nonetheless, those of us of a nationalist bent who are favourably disposed towards the BNP constitute a very modest force when pitted against the power and wealth of the mass media. It is very much a David versus Goliath scenario.
What then, are the prospects for the BNP in 2010? Can we realistically expect to see the party secure its first Westminster MPs? If so, which constituencies offer the most likely prospects, and which candidates should we be following with the keenest interest? Over the coming week I shall be writing a series of articles dealing with those constituencies in which I think the BNP will perform strongly. Whether or not this translates into elected MPs or a number of second and third places we will not know until 7 May, but if the odds at Paddypower.com are anything to go by, some seats should yield some very interesting results indeed.
In the 2005 General Election the BNP fielded 119 candidates and won a total of 192,746 votes. This represented 0.7% of the total with each candidate winning an average of 1620 votes. In last June’s EU elections the BNP won a total of 943,598 votes representing 6.26% of the vote which was a 1.3% increase on their 2004 figure of 808,200. The mass media have often deliberately lied about this most recent result, claiming that the BNP vote had fallen in numerical terms since the 2004 EU elections, but as the figures demonstrate, this was not the case.
Recent opinion polls tend to place the national level of support for the BNP at anywhere between 2 and 4%. This however masks considerable regional variations with the party scoring consistently better in England, for it barely registers in Scotland and Wales. It is probable that the reported level is lower than the actual level of support, for it has been observed that people are often reluctant to state that they are considering voting for the BNP, particularly when questioned over the telephone.
Taking into account the aforementioned figures, what might we expect in terms of a likely overall result for the BNP in May 2010? General elections are not EU elections and thus parties that appeal specifically to nationalism and anti-EU sentiment tend to do better in the latter than in the former. I will therefore start with the most conservative estimate of the BNP vote, projecting a repeat performance of 2005 with an average of 1620 votes per candidate which would yield 528,120 votes. If we assume (simply for the sake of direct comparison, for the situation will not repeat itself) that the total number of votes cast for all parties nationally came to the same sum for 2005, this would give the BNP a 1.9% share of the vote.
As the party would have achieved this result by standing in only circa half of the available Westminster seats, this would equate to a rough national share of 3.8% which would match the party’s position in many polls. Although the sum total would thus be far more impressive than 2005’s tally of 192,746, it would mean that the BNP would have been treading water. It therefore needs to achieve substantially more votes and a correspondingly higher share of the national total to indicate that it has achieved a significant breakthrough. When considering the current combination of toxic factors - mass immigration, economic crisis, Islamisation, the war in Afghanistan, the expenses scandal, multiculturalism and the loss of sovereignty to the EU - which have made large swathes of the electorate either hostile towards the mainstream political parties or apathetic about politics in general, and the lack of willingness on the part of the said parties to discuss any of these issues other than the economy, the threshold of success, I would suggest, needs to be set at a minimum of 970,000 votes. This would equate to roughly 7% of the vote. If the BNP manages to garner in the region of 1.5 million votes or above, it will truly have emerged as a political force with serious prospects.
I have no doubt that the vote received by the BNP in a number of constituencies will be in excess of 15%, but it is likely that its prospective impact in many instances will unfortunately be blunted by the presence of other candidates who are likely to dilute the nationalist vote (i.e. UKIP and the English Democrats). This will be a great pity, for it may deny the prospects of office to a number of BNP candidates. Such a situation, I hope, will not arise at future parliamentary elections, for we cannot afford for the nationalist vote to remain split any longer. Our very survival as a nation depends upon a unified British nationalist party which can fight for office against its globalist dhimmi opponents.
Over the coming week or so I will therefore be writing about my BNP ‘Top 10’ target constituencies. This is simply a personal selection, but I do believe that the best prospects for the party lie amongst their number, and I shall be avidly glued to the screen waiting for these results on election night. These are (in no particular order): Barking (Nick Griffin); Stoke-on-Trent Central (Simon Darby); Thurrock (Emma Colgate); Keighley (Andrew Brons); Salford and Eccles (Tina Wingfield); Stoke-on-Trent South (Mike Coleman); Burnley (Sharon Wilkinson); Dagenham and Rainham (Michael Barnbrook); Dewsbury (Roger Roberts); Dudley North (Ken Griffiths).
In 2005 certain Labour candidates used the alleged BNP ‘threat’ in a cynical attempt to mobilise disillusioned Labour voters, persuading them to vote for a party that they no longer believed in and which long ago had abandoned them. Paradoxically, many who then cast their votes for Labour will have voted against a party – the BNP – whose policies they would have benefited from and approved of had they had been properly informed of the content of the BNP manifesto. Then, as now, the mass media were united in their hostility to the BNP, but unlike in 2005 the dissemination of information this time around has been democratised. Thanks to the growth in public internet access and the burgeoning of political blogs and online social media, the stranglehold of the National Union of Journalists and its explicit guidelines enforcing distorted reporting has to a certain extent been circumvented. Nonetheless, those of us of a nationalist bent who are favourably disposed towards the BNP constitute a very modest force when pitted against the power and wealth of the mass media. It is very much a David versus Goliath scenario.
What then, are the prospects for the BNP in 2010? Can we realistically expect to see the party secure its first Westminster MPs? If so, which constituencies offer the most likely prospects, and which candidates should we be following with the keenest interest? Over the coming week I shall be writing a series of articles dealing with those constituencies in which I think the BNP will perform strongly. Whether or not this translates into elected MPs or a number of second and third places we will not know until 7 May, but if the odds at Paddypower.com are anything to go by, some seats should yield some very interesting results indeed.
In the 2005 General Election the BNP fielded 119 candidates and won a total of 192,746 votes. This represented 0.7% of the total with each candidate winning an average of 1620 votes. In last June’s EU elections the BNP won a total of 943,598 votes representing 6.26% of the vote which was a 1.3% increase on their 2004 figure of 808,200. The mass media have often deliberately lied about this most recent result, claiming that the BNP vote had fallen in numerical terms since the 2004 EU elections, but as the figures demonstrate, this was not the case.
Recent opinion polls tend to place the national level of support for the BNP at anywhere between 2 and 4%. This however masks considerable regional variations with the party scoring consistently better in England, for it barely registers in Scotland and Wales. It is probable that the reported level is lower than the actual level of support, for it has been observed that people are often reluctant to state that they are considering voting for the BNP, particularly when questioned over the telephone.
Taking into account the aforementioned figures, what might we expect in terms of a likely overall result for the BNP in May 2010? General elections are not EU elections and thus parties that appeal specifically to nationalism and anti-EU sentiment tend to do better in the latter than in the former. I will therefore start with the most conservative estimate of the BNP vote, projecting a repeat performance of 2005 with an average of 1620 votes per candidate which would yield 528,120 votes. If we assume (simply for the sake of direct comparison, for the situation will not repeat itself) that the total number of votes cast for all parties nationally came to the same sum for 2005, this would give the BNP a 1.9% share of the vote.
As the party would have achieved this result by standing in only circa half of the available Westminster seats, this would equate to a rough national share of 3.8% which would match the party’s position in many polls. Although the sum total would thus be far more impressive than 2005’s tally of 192,746, it would mean that the BNP would have been treading water. It therefore needs to achieve substantially more votes and a correspondingly higher share of the national total to indicate that it has achieved a significant breakthrough. When considering the current combination of toxic factors - mass immigration, economic crisis, Islamisation, the war in Afghanistan, the expenses scandal, multiculturalism and the loss of sovereignty to the EU - which have made large swathes of the electorate either hostile towards the mainstream political parties or apathetic about politics in general, and the lack of willingness on the part of the said parties to discuss any of these issues other than the economy, the threshold of success, I would suggest, needs to be set at a minimum of 970,000 votes. This would equate to roughly 7% of the vote. If the BNP manages to garner in the region of 1.5 million votes or above, it will truly have emerged as a political force with serious prospects.
I have no doubt that the vote received by the BNP in a number of constituencies will be in excess of 15%, but it is likely that its prospective impact in many instances will unfortunately be blunted by the presence of other candidates who are likely to dilute the nationalist vote (i.e. UKIP and the English Democrats). This will be a great pity, for it may deny the prospects of office to a number of BNP candidates. Such a situation, I hope, will not arise at future parliamentary elections, for we cannot afford for the nationalist vote to remain split any longer. Our very survival as a nation depends upon a unified British nationalist party which can fight for office against its globalist dhimmi opponents.
Over the coming week or so I will therefore be writing about my BNP ‘Top 10’ target constituencies. This is simply a personal selection, but I do believe that the best prospects for the party lie amongst their number, and I shall be avidly glued to the screen waiting for these results on election night. These are (in no particular order): Barking (Nick Griffin); Stoke-on-Trent Central (Simon Darby); Thurrock (Emma Colgate); Keighley (Andrew Brons); Salford and Eccles (Tina Wingfield); Stoke-on-Trent South (Mike Coleman); Burnley (Sharon Wilkinson); Dagenham and Rainham (Michael Barnbrook); Dewsbury (Roger Roberts); Dudley North (Ken Griffiths).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)