3rd December 2009, 14:07
Analysis of BNP voting pattern August to November 2009
I have done some calculations with evidence gleaned from the Association of Liberal Democratic councillors’ website.
They report 101 wards have been contested since 27th August 2009 up to the 26th of November 2009.
The BNP stood in 21 wards; their average % in these wards was 10.576%. However if you minus the Boston case, as an exceptional case (a large vote when somebody had previously stood, but wasn’t now, was split between everybody in this case) then their average vote is 9.22%.
The average BNP vote cast spread over all 101 wards is 2.199%.
The BNP did NOT contest SIX wards where they had stood before, which is a high drop out/turnover rate, of approx 25% of the 27 wards where the BNP have had some presence.
If you count these wards with the 21 wards they stood in, then their vote has risen 0.4%. Again, taking away the exceptional Boston case where their vote was artificially inflated then their voting trend is DOWNWARDS, -0.2423%. Which is an interesting statistic.
So what's the scientific totality if you just count the wards where the BNP choose to stand? Is their vote going up or down?
In the 21 wards where the BNP choose to stand then the answer to this question is 3.3523%, the Boston case rather skews the result, if you exclude Boston the answer is 2.665%. However, that makes no sense because it includes areas where they stand for the first time, and not areas where they did not stand, when they did last time, where they are meant to be building strength.
This is a 3 month (quarterly) snapshot of the voting trend in those 101 wards, and this is the real overall movement of class society of all areas based on the assessment of votes in all wards in that 3 month window (including both before and after Question Time).
I calculated the %%% both with and without that Boston case. That Boston ward is a totally abnormal case (which they didn't win), and if you are more interested in normality, rather than ultra left bullshit, then it makes scientific sense to exclude that dramatic relocation of votes when a key player in that ward no longer took part. So, in other words, it is more 'normal' to exclude it than to include it.
Calculations are the scientific totality, not some fetishistic exercise in bigging up the BNP. All wards were used, including those where the BNP have never stood, but also including all those where they had ever stood. This is how you approach a bigger picture, by examining all the sides, that IS Marxism whether you like it or not. Notice, I did not leave any out, and I explained how the calculations were arrived at. That is scientific honesty without prejeudice
Of course their votes and influence do not disappear ‘just like that’ if they do not stand. However, you cannot argue that the BNP NOT standing is politically neutral for them. It is arguable that it harms their chances and their appeal, the same as an often used argument against the left of ‘jumping in and jumping out’ of areas.
Of the 21 wards where the BNP stood, they stood for the first time (i know of and without checking ward histories beyond the last vote) in 11 of them.
Thus their vote went up in these wards 11 times. That said. their overall vote rise included 2 wards where their vote went up (including Boston), so overall their vote rose in 13 wards out of the 21. Their vote was static in 3 wards, and went DOWN in 5.
Thus in the seats where they have stood previously and stand now, that is 10 altogether. In these seats their vote went down in 5 (50%), static in 3 (30%) and up in only 2 (20%), if you include seats where they have stood previously and do not stand now (6) with this, their fall in votes is even more dramatic - down in 11 out of 16- the BNP vote down in 11 out of 16 percentage is 68.75%!!.
This i think is particularly important, it is significant because it suggests high levels of disenchantment with the BNP after the initial 'honeymoon period' of the first outing. Thus normality is a declining BNP vote beyond the first outing.
TO recap, I think adding up all wards where they have stood previously and do not stand now, should count in an overall assesment of the strength or weakness of the BNP vote. Thus in those 27 wards, their vote went up in 13 (48.148%), down in 11 (40.7407%) and static in 3 (11.1111%). Things do not always go the BNPs way, far from it.
Thus the BNP voting trend in 26 of the 27 wards where they have stood previously and are standing is down 0.24223%.
I have done some calculations with evidence gleaned from the Association of Liberal Democratic councillors’ website.
They report 101 wards have been contested since 27th August 2009 up to the 26th of November 2009.
The BNP stood in 21 wards; their average % in these wards was 10.576%. However if you minus the Boston case, as an exceptional case (a large vote when somebody had previously stood, but wasn’t now, was split between everybody in this case) then their average vote is 9.22%.
The average BNP vote cast spread over all 101 wards is 2.199%.
The BNP did NOT contest SIX wards where they had stood before, which is a high drop out/turnover rate, of approx 25% of the 27 wards where the BNP have had some presence.
If you count these wards with the 21 wards they stood in, then their vote has risen 0.4%. Again, taking away the exceptional Boston case where their vote was artificially inflated then their voting trend is DOWNWARDS, -0.2423%. Which is an interesting statistic.
So what's the scientific totality if you just count the wards where the BNP choose to stand? Is their vote going up or down?
In the 21 wards where the BNP choose to stand then the answer to this question is 3.3523%, the Boston case rather skews the result, if you exclude Boston the answer is 2.665%. However, that makes no sense because it includes areas where they stand for the first time, and not areas where they did not stand, when they did last time, where they are meant to be building strength.
This is a 3 month (quarterly) snapshot of the voting trend in those 101 wards, and this is the real overall movement of class society of all areas based on the assessment of votes in all wards in that 3 month window (including both before and after Question Time).
I calculated the %%% both with and without that Boston case. That Boston ward is a totally abnormal case (which they didn't win), and if you are more interested in normality, rather than ultra left bullshit, then it makes scientific sense to exclude that dramatic relocation of votes when a key player in that ward no longer took part. So, in other words, it is more 'normal' to exclude it than to include it.
Calculations are the scientific totality, not some fetishistic exercise in bigging up the BNP. All wards were used, including those where the BNP have never stood, but also including all those where they had ever stood. This is how you approach a bigger picture, by examining all the sides, that IS Marxism whether you like it or not. Notice, I did not leave any out, and I explained how the calculations were arrived at. That is scientific honesty without prejeudice
Of course their votes and influence do not disappear ‘just like that’ if they do not stand. However, you cannot argue that the BNP NOT standing is politically neutral for them. It is arguable that it harms their chances and their appeal, the same as an often used argument against the left of ‘jumping in and jumping out’ of areas.
Of the 21 wards where the BNP stood, they stood for the first time (i know of and without checking ward histories beyond the last vote) in 11 of them.
Thus their vote went up in these wards 11 times. That said. their overall vote rise included 2 wards where their vote went up (including Boston), so overall their vote rose in 13 wards out of the 21. Their vote was static in 3 wards, and went DOWN in 5.
Thus in the seats where they have stood previously and stand now, that is 10 altogether. In these seats their vote went down in 5 (50%), static in 3 (30%) and up in only 2 (20%), if you include seats where they have stood previously and do not stand now (6) with this, their fall in votes is even more dramatic - down in 11 out of 16- the BNP vote down in 11 out of 16 percentage is 68.75%!!.
This i think is particularly important, it is significant because it suggests high levels of disenchantment with the BNP after the initial 'honeymoon period' of the first outing. Thus normality is a declining BNP vote beyond the first outing.
TO recap, I think adding up all wards where they have stood previously and do not stand now, should count in an overall assesment of the strength or weakness of the BNP vote. Thus in those 27 wards, their vote went up in 13 (48.148%), down in 11 (40.7407%) and static in 3 (11.1111%). Things do not always go the BNPs way, far from it.
Thus the BNP voting trend in 26 of the 27 wards where they have stood previously and are standing is down 0.24223%.