The end of the BNP?

We don’t talk much about smaller parties on Britain Votes, which is a shame because there’s quite some interesting things to be said about them. Perhaps one of the most interesting stories of recent times is the potential end of the British National Party. The party is said to be near bankruptcy and if it is declared bankrupt then its two MEPs, (one of which is Nick Griffin) will lose their seats. The party’s poor finances are primarily blamed on a series of lawsuits, both against Marmite for using their copyrighted material in advertising and with the Equality and Human Rights Commission for repeatedly refusing to alter rules to allow entry by ethnic minority Britons. The latter was particularly foolish as the BNP was sued, lost the case, and changed its rules, but its new rules were still considered discriminatory and it was sued again. Part of the blame must also go to its 2010 election performance which was poor. While the party came fifth in terms of the popular vote, getting 1.9% of the vote, it did so standing in 338 constituencies. This means that in a lot of seats the BNP lost deposits – at five hundred pounds for each seat where they scored below 5%. Embarrassing the party further they lost all their seats on Barking and Dagenham council which they had hoped to take control of. Meanwhile the Greens scored a larger success, by winning their first seat, on only 1% of the national vote, by essentially targeting their campaigning efforts into two seats.

Since the election the party has been victim to a series of defections, including from relatively high profile members such as Richard Barnbrook, its sole MLA on the Greater London Assembly. Griffin has also been subject to challenges to his authority with leadership contests most prominently from its campaigns chief, Eddy Butler. Butler’s website has a series of accusations though who knows how trustworthy they are as Butler has since been kicked out of the party. Perhaps due to this constant pressure Griffin has announced he will stand down in 2013, but even if the party does still technically exist at the next election it seems unlikely it will be capable of mounting the same degree of campaign as before, it will likely be cash-strapped and have a much smaller number of activists – Butler, amongst others, claims that the party has lost 4,000 of the 14,000 members it claimed to have when it last updated its Electoral Commission records (though these claims do, of course, come from people with an anti-BNP agenda). In a very real sense then, the BNP appears to be a failed project on its last legs as a notable electoral force.

While the leadership of Griffin, overstretching resources, making poor legal decisions and holding absolute control over his party, must surely be largely to blame for the BNP’s apparent failure I personally feel that the party was never destined to become an influential force. Many will talk of our electoral system, and yes, First Past the Post must take some credit for making it much harder for fringe parties to gain seats, but at the same time the BNP’s party identity is problematic. The BNP is part of a recent trend in European political parties which began in the 1980s and exploded in the 1990s – the right-wing populist party. Such parties gained support and success from a mixture of anti-establishment rhetoric (hence ‘populist’) and anti-egalitarian stances (hence ‘right-wing’). They often combined this with an idiosyncratic set of economic views and extreme anti-immigration and particularly anti-muslim rhetoric (often said to be the defining feature of such parties). The parties appealed predominantly to disaffected working class white males. Many were quite successful and some have even reached government or at least supported minority governments (for instance in Switzerland, the Netherlands and Denmark). Yet there is a key difference between the BNP and these other parties. The BNP was formed by a splinter from the National Front led by John Tyndall whose previous statements had included statements to the effect that Hitler was right, and other rhetoric that was clearly fascistic. Under Griffin the party attempted to distance itself from associations with fascism but its history made this impossible. I do not actually believe that the BNP is fascist, and I feel the word is overused and in doing so the term is devalued, but the party has never been able to distance itself from claims that it is far-right, racist, and authoritarian. This compares unfavourably with European right-wing populist parties the most successful of which have never been associated with fascism. See the Progress Parties of Denmark and Norway who emanated from anti-tax movements, see the Freedom Party of Austria which was once considered a liberal party, see the Party for Freedom of the Netherlands which splintered from a liberal party, or the Swiss People’s Party that was for a long time an agrarian-conservative outfit. The most successful right-wing populist parties have emerged from various centre-right outfits. Those that come from the far-right are less successful. The Sweden Democrats emanated from a neo-Nazi movement and only gained their first seats this year despite only needing 4% of the vote to do so. To my mind the BNP had reached its ceiling, and I doubt the party would have found it easy to gain seats even if we had PR.

So what then, of British right-wing populism? The BNP’s voters and activists do not cease to hold their views even if their party is moribund. On the one hand is the English Defence League protest group which protests against Islam in the UK. The EDL, as a grassroots organisation, is much more difficult to paint out as racist or fascist because it does not have an obvious leader like Griffin, and the racism of individual members can be written off as unrepresentative of the wider organisation. On the other hand Britain already has another party that could be described as right-wing populist and it is called the UK Independence Party. UKIP’s primary viewpoint is anti-European, but it is also anti-immigration, and anti-establishment, not dissimilar from our prior description of right-wing populists. More moderate European right-wing populist parties already resemble it, and the party’s former leader, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, invited the Dutch right-wing populist leader Geert Wilders to the Houses of Parliament for a showing of his anti-Islamic film Fitna. The party also shares a European parliamentary group with parties which can all be contained under the ‘right-wing populist’ umbrella. Yet unlike the BNP it is much more difficult to write UKIP off as racist or fascistic – when David Cameron described the party as ‘fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly’ he was criticised by the press, his own party and threatened with a defamation suit from UKIP itself. Indeed like many right-wing populists when UKIP politicians criticise Islam it is often from a view that purports to be liberal – that Islam is repressive and intolerant and so it is incompatible with the British way of life. Many of its most prominent members and leaders originate from the Conservative Party (including current leader Nigel Farage) and it has professionalism and an appeal to the middle classes that the BNP never had. The party could easily broaden its agenda with a moderate form of right-wing populism and suck up much of the BNP’s vote. Yet in doing so it must be careful, for it risks putting off those more moderate anti-European voters who have twice propelled it into second place in European Parliamentary elections, and if it is to win seats under an AV election, as it appears to hope, it may find this puts off voters from preferencing it.

The BNP may not cease to exist completely (indeed it is worth remembering that the National Front still exists and fields candidates, however lacking its success) but it appears to be on its last legs. Yet just because the party disappears it does not mean that the views of their supporters change. Like it or not the BNP has tapped into something which the three main parties have failed to represent. I am certain that sooner or later right-wing populism will rear its head again, albeit with a different face.

Once Upon a Time in Canada – When FPTP goes Wrong

Canada has remarkably similar politics to our own, with a House of Commons elected by first past the post, a PM, an un-elected Senate appointed by the PM, some Queen called Elizabeth, a weekly 'Question Period' and so on. Historically Canadian politics had three major parties, the socialist New Democratic Party (NDP), the eternal third party in the Canadian system, the Progressive Conservatives (or 'Tories'), and the usually dominant centrist Liberal Party. The Liberals were the dominant party, but in 1984 the Tories won a whopping landslide, partially on the back of promises of constitutional reform that would give autonomy to the French-speaking nationalist-minded province of Quebec. That constitutional reform failed (twice) and as a result a new party called the Bloc Quebecois (BQ) was formed. In its first election in 1993 the BQ received 13.5% of the vote in its first election but this was enough to gain 54 seats as that vote was concentrated just in the 75 Quebec seats. A divided opposition meant that the Liberals were able to hold onto government but the merger of the major right-wing parties into the Conservative Party led to a hung parliament in 2004, and a Liberal minority government. Canada went to the polls again in 2006 and were left with a hung parliament yet again, which caused the Tories to form a minority government, a fresh election in 2008 left yet another Tory minority in power. In fact, for the foreseeable future it is almost impossible to see Canada governed by anything but minorities as the BQ hovers around the 10% mark in popularity, but as it campaigns in only one province this is enough to guarantee it around 1/6^th of the seats. No one wants to be seen to work with the BQ too closely, as the party is separatist, and therefore wants to see the end of Canada – a position that is seen as close to treasonous by many Canadians. The NDP would like to form a coalition with the Liberals, but so far they have not gained enough seats to do this, a further problem for the NDP and Liberals lies in the Green Party, which doesn't hold any seats but which got almost 7% of the vote at the 2008 election. In order for the Liberals or the PCs to form a majority government they do not just need to beat each other, but the combined weight of the NDP and BQ as well, and in the Liberals case, stop votes draining to the Greens. As the NDP usually gets around 20-30 seats, the Liberals or Conservatives need to beat each other by around 80 seats (Parliament currently has 308 seats), an extremely difficult task. Canadian minority government is unstable and usually relies on opposition parties not wanting to force an election, yet fresh elections are almost constantly being threatened, and the fact that between 2004 and 2008 Canada had three elections should demonstrate something. The BC is also uniquely powerful, often able to hold the government to ransom, despite achieving the smallest vote percentage of four parliamentary parties.

There are parallels here to the UK. While the nationalist movements in the UK do not perform well enough to provide a bloc as powerful as the BQ does, there is an increasing bloc of MPs not affiliated to either the Conservative or Labour Party. At the recent election 85 MPs were elected for the Lib Dems or other parties. This makes hung parliaments increasingly likely. While I personally would make an educated guess that the next election will result in a majority for one party or the other, the amount of votes and seats for the main two parties has been declining for fifty years now, and is unlikely to end permanently. In the long-term it is likely that we will see our own election results increasingly mirror Canada's. Our problem is however a different one – Canada's parliament has four parties and two independents, and there is a fifth party that looks likely to pick up seats at some stage. The UK parliament has 10 parties, and 1 independent, or six parties if one ignores Northern Ireland. Most of these, however, are tiny, for example the Green Party has just 1 MP. Plaid Cymru has 3. This means that if hung parliaments do become more common, as is likely, we may one day get a government dependent upon micro-parties, who would hold disproportionate influence on microscopic vote percentages. This is not a route to stable government. Therefore the Lib Dems become all the more important.

The Canadian example is fascinating because if proportional representation was introduced the seats for the BQ would be reduced as it gains disproportionate seats because its vote is extraordinarily regionalised. Yet the NDP wins 15-20% of the vote and wins half the seats. Were PR to be introduced, the NDP would form a much larger bloc, capable of providing a worthy ally to the Liberals. In the UK, a hung parliament advantages one party – the Lib Dems. In a sense the Lib Dems would be better advantaged by constant hung parliaments under FPTP than by PR. As the only third party with a reasonably sized bloc of MPs they are the only one who can provide a large enough majority to guarantee stable government. Therefore both Labour and Conservatives are dependent on them, in a hung parliament, to reach government. Like the BQ, they have the capability to make or break governments and we can see this from the negotiations process in May. If hung parliaments come to be a regular occurrence in British political life it would perversely weaken the Liberal Democrats to introduce PR by meaning that new parties would have the chance to enter parliament and form blocs large enough to act as potential partners to Labour and the Conservatives. In so doing PR would remove the potential for governments dependent upon micro-parties and for the Lib Dems to find themselves in permanent government, switching coalition partners as they see fit, both of which I believe are undesirable. For precisely these reasons I expect that if hung parliaments do become a norm in British political life it will not be long before all parties agree with the need for PR. The Canadian example is important because it demonstrates that one of the key arguments for FPTP – stable, single party governance – is a myth and contingent upon political conditions. Given the right conditions FPTP can also provide instability, and were PR introduced into Canada the result would likely be a more stable form of politics. This may be the situation that Britain eventually ends up with too; indeed it is the likely one if trends continue to unravel as they have.

Of course, I may yet be proved wrong in my analysis of the wider trends, and who knows what the future will bring, but my feeling is that Canada provides a warning to us all on the dangers of how first past the post may one day go wrong.

The final third party breakthrough?

This year could well be a fantastic year for third parties in Britain. The Lib Dems are surging the SNP are targeting twenty seats, the Greens could get their first seats and even UKIP may pick up a seat! Yet, in a sense, this may really be bringing to a head a process that begun long ago, and has really been in the ascendancy since 1974.

1945. A vitally important year in British history. Of course, it marks the end of the Second World War It also marks the 1945 election which swept in the Labour government of Clement Attlee. Attlee's government is famed for its introducing of the NHS, a large-scale welfare state, council housing, mass-nationalisation and more. Yet what is forgotten is it was also the first majority Labour government we ever had. Labour had been providing Prime Ministers since 1922, but they had never had a majority of seats in the Commons, they had always been sent to Downing Street only through the support of the Liberal Party. By the 1951 election 96.8% of ballots cast were cast for Labour, the Conservatives, or their allies. The Liberals were only able to win a meagre six seats. The electorate had essentially become divided down class lines. If you were working class you voted Labour, if you were middle class, you voted Conservative. The Liberals were the party you could fit in a taxi, their only seats were in Cornwall, central Wales and Northern Scotland where they won seats off the back of nonconformist religious sects and localist stances.

Then came the 1960s. The 60s heralded a cultural revolution. Old loyalties were broken, new cultural standards blossomed; cynicism of elites came to the fore. In the 1964 election the headline was that Labour's Harold Wilson had become Prime Minister, but in the quiet background was the fact that the Liberals had gone from 6 seats on 5.9% of the vote to 9 seats on 11.2%. More than 1/10^th of the British public had voted Liberal and rejected the two party duopoly. More was to come. New national identities were found. Suddenly there was less talk of 'Britishness' and more talk of being Welsh, or Scottish. In 1966 Plaid Cymru won the Carmarthen by-election in a shock victory, winning their first ever MP. In 1967 the SNP won the Labour safe seat of Hamilton in a by-election as well. This followed high scores in by-elections and local elections for nationalists in both countries.

The moment for third parties was supposed to be 1974. Predictions suggested that the Liberals could get as many as 50-70 seats. In the end February 1974 heralded a hung parliament. In terms of popular vote both parties got less than 40%, a first. The Liberals more than doubled their vote and their seats, but this took them to only 14. The SNP reached a new high of 7, and Plaid went from 0 in 1970 to 2. Unfortunately the tiny liberals were too small to behave as a coalition partner to either party, and a new election was called. The October 1974 election gave Labour a tiny majority, but the Liberals lost only 1% of the vote, and 1 seat. The SNP and Plaid Cymru actually performed better than in February getting 11 seats (the SNP's best ever showing) and 3 seats respectively. The third parties were not going away. Labour's reducing majority resulted the need to seek Liberal, and then Nationalist support to remain in power, this combined with the trial of Jeremy Thorpe, the Liberal leader, for the supposed attempted murder of his gay lover damaged the third parties performance in 1979, as Thatcher swept to party. Yet Labour's ensuing lurch to the left resulted in a split. The new Social Democratic Party allied with the Liberals, and the new SDP-Liberal Alliance polled incredibly, at times over 50%, but the economy improved, and the Fawklands boosted Thatcher's public image. Nonetheless the Alliance secured 25.4% of the vote and 23 seats, the best result ever for a third party. When they lost 2.8% of the vote and a seat in 1987 the two parties merged to form the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats quickly lost support. The 1989 European election was a particular low point, where they won only 6% of the vote. Nonetheless this did not represent the end of third parties as the Green Party won their best ever popular support, at 15%. Under Paddy Ashdown though, they recovered enough to lose only 2 seats on 17.8% of the vote in 1992. They actually lost votes in 1997, but the Lib Dems almost doubled their seats thanks to tactical voting by Labour supporters. They would continue to gain seats and votes until 2005, where they won the most seats of any third party since the 1920s, and along with other third parties, pushed Labour and the Conservatives down to less than 70% of the vote between them for the first time ever.

Much talk surrounds whether Liberal Democrat or other third party voters come from Labour or the Conservatives. In reality they don't come from anywhere. Since the 1960s there has been a large portion of the electorate that has been alienated from both parties. This portion has fluctuated up and down, but it exists and it is sizeable. What this election has done is to demonstrate just how big that portion of the electorate may be. Whatever happens on Thursday, nothing will the same ever again, and the reason is that these people can no longer be ignored. Third parties matter more than ever, they are increasingly seen as a legitimate place to vote. If the electoral system continues it will become increasingly difficult to secure majorities because there is an increasing bank of seats which will be secured by third parties. Parties therefore need to secure more seats than the main opposition AND the third parties, and the thing about the results of the Lib Dems and their predecessors the Liberals is that it is VERY difficult to unseat them when they get a seat. Even when the Liberals do worse than in a previous election, they have, at worst, lost 1 or 2 seats. Politics has fragmented, this is the reality now. An eventual change in the electoral system is now inevitable, not because the Lib Dems want it, but because First Past the Post has ceased to reflect the way the British people vote. In fact in many ways, it ceased to represent them decades ago.

Edit: This graph proves my point rather effectively I think.