« Conclusions from the London elections | Main | One hundred and sixty thousand voters needed to defeat the BNP »
May 03, 2008
MVC's response to the election of a BNP Assembly Member
The make-up of the Assembly reflects how all of London voted. And the hard truth in this election is that 5.3% of voters citywide voted for the BNP, much to the dismay and anxiety of many other Londoners.
If people vote in sufficient numbers for a party, under proportional representation their voice will be heard. This applies to small parties with democratic values and something to contribute, such as the Greens, but also to extreme parties. And the BNP has gained above the 5% threshold needed at these elections to earn an Assembly seat.
No system gives parties seats; it is the action of voters that does. Voting for extremist parties is often a sign not so much of massive popular support for their values as an indicator that voters want to make a protest against the political system. One of the reasons that the BNP may have done well in the outer fringes of London is that for too long voters in those areas have felt that mainstream political parties weren't listening to them or putting policies in place that would benefit them. This has created the political space for the BNP to come in and exploit the disaffection.
However, the way the London Assembly elections work has also given anti-racist campaigners the opportunity to organise, campaign and get out the vote in their own areas, in an effort to push up turnout and raise the threshold needed for the BNP to gain seats. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the message that votes in the London Assembly London-wide Members ballot in effect counted twice – once for the party they support, and once against the BNP – motivated numbers of people who otherwise may not have voted to make the trip to their polling station.
Under First-Past-the-Post can a party can win seats by exploiting local grievances in a small area rather than trying for the broader appeal that the BNP has had to seek in London. also let extreme parties in. At these set of local elections, the BNP won three seats in Stoke-on-Trent and two each in Amber Valley, Rotherham and Nuneaton & Bedworth. It also took one seat in Thurrock, Three Rivers, Pendle and Calderdale. It also successfully defended seats in Epping and Burnley. This takes the number of BNP councillors to 55, up from 45 before these elections. [source: www.hopenothate.org.uk]
There is a vital difference between representation and control. While obnoxious parties can get represented under PR, it is virtually impossible for them to gain control. It is only in FPTP that there is the possibility of having one's representation monopolised by an extreme party. The BNP has all the borough council seats in a ward in Burnley (Hapton-with-Park) without ever enjoying 40% support and in a ward in Stoke-on-Trent (Abbey Green) on just over 30%of the vote. Residents there have no where to turn if they do not like that party. In many of the cases where the BNP has gained a seat, they have done so very narrowly, with the mainstream party vote split and therefore ineffective in defeating extremists.
It should also be noted that getting represented is often a step to the political defeat of extreme parties. As the inadequacy of BNP politicians and policies is exposed - and once the threat has been seen off - the electorate are more wary of parties that offer easy answers in future.
Posted by malcolmclark on May 03, 2008
Comments
I think it essential that supporters of parties such as the BNP get their voices heard. As you say, with smaller votes they can achieve greater representation under FPTP than PR. It may be that the BNP assembly member will be a good one, representing all his constituents. The evidence so far of BNP councillors’ abilities is not impressive, but then there are plenty of ineffective administrations led by the major parties!
But I have no more faith in single issue parties such as the Greens or UKIP having coherent and comprehensive policies and running administrations effectively.
What is most important is that these parties – such as BNP on immigration, the Greens on the environment and UKIP on Europe are allowed to stand in democratic contests. All these parties have shown that, although they have little hope of controlling councils or even Parliament, they can raise the profile of their issue, which would otherwise be swept under the carpet by the mainstream parties if they had the choice.
Of course no one wants this country to go the way of Italy and its myriad of minor parties which can never agree, but surely any democrat would agree that the voter should have the right of voting for the issue that most concerns him or her, with the guarantee that that vote will actually count.
Posted by: Roger Inkpen at May 5, 2008 11:02 AM
We're democrats and believe in free speech, but we're also committed to civil and rational debate. We reserve the right to delete material posted to our site, but we hope and expect to exercise this right rarely if at all.
