The perfect storm for the BNP?

Alan Billings in last week's Church Times draws attention to a really excellent set of 'put downs' to some of the BNP's policies. It may not be viewable for a couple of weeks here: Church Times - The perfect storm for the BNP. Anyway here's the bit that I really enjoyed "in my local newspaper, the Sheffield Star, last week. Alison Gethin wrote a letter setting out her reasons for not voting BNP. Here are a few:

“Vote to have Lenny Henry reclassified as a foreign national? You must be joking, he’s a Brummie. . . Why should I vote to lose Olympic medals by reclassifying Dame Kelly Holmes, Colin Jackson, Amir Khan, Linford Christie etc? . . In 2004 I was diagnosed with cancer, and thanks to the expert treatment in the NHS by medical staff of various ethnic groups, I’m still here. . .

“All my working life I have been a member of a trade union. The BNP would abolish unions. . . I have no wish to return to a time when adult homosexuality was illegal. I admire John Barrowman and Graham Norton too much to vote BNP. . . When I was married in 1972, I needed my husband’s permission to buy anything on hire purchase. I won’t vote for the BNP because of their outdated views on women’s rights. . .

“As a Christian, I know how careful the churches are to stay out of politics. Now churches are asking their congregations to vote for any party other than BNP. They know that the views of the BNP are not Christian, whatever their leaflets say.”"

What I wasn't quite so keen on was this "The centre of this perfect storm is the European electoral system. Unlike British General Elections and elec­tions to local councils, the European election will be decided by propor­tional repres­enta­tion. PR enables smaller parties to capture seats with tiny fractions of the overall votes cast. In some regions, the BNP could achieve victory on the basis of perhaps a single-figure percentage. Then a seat in Brussels will bring a platform and funds for further advance."
To get a handle on why I wasn't happy about this, well, here's my letter to the CT:

Sir,
it was good to see a really robust and helpful approach to the BNP spelled out by Alan billings. It's such a shame that in doing so he mistakes one of his targets and seems to be trying to dissuade the reader from one of the things that could actually help. He writes; "PR enables smaller parties to capture seats with tiny fractions of the overall votes cast. In some regions, the BNP could achieve victory on the basis of perhaps a single-figure percentage."

There are a number of problems with this apparent dismissal of PR. The most serious, in my view, is that it could be read to imply that we should avoid democratic processes if they produce results we don't like; that it's okay to have governments elected by minorities as long as they are 'our' minority. I trust that isn't what is being said, but that apparent principle lurking by implication is worrying. It is also misleading when considering the Padiham and Burnley West County Council where 31% of the voters managed to elect to the sole seat a BNP candidate: first past the post will do that when the tiny minority is actually not quite so tiny (and in fact, with enough of a split vote, fptp could also deliver a single-percentage-figure elected candidate). By contrast I can think of no PR system which would allow 'victory' on a single-figure percentage. Representation conceivably (though unlikely in EU elections under the current system), but then that would mean far more representation for people and parties who have gained the rest of the vote -who would then, I hope, soundly defeat the BNP in debates and show them up for what they are.

There are further difficulties with Alan's implication. He doesn't seem to take into account that there are several versions of PR and a number of them don't work quite like he makes out: 'tiny fractions' are unlikely to win much under most PR systems including the ones being used in Britain; please have a look at the experience of the Welsh assembly and the Scottish parliament.

We should note that we have a situation in the EU constituencies where the vast majority of voters are represented by someone they voted for which is not something that could be said of Westminster constituencies. That said, the closed list system probably isn't the one to go with. STV or at least the AV system (which seems the likely candidate should things go to a referendum) would be better for Westminster elections. Especially so when we consider that it would appear that the MPs who have given greatest concern in recent events are those with 'safe' majorities. Appropriate PR systems would make 'safe seats' far less safe thus concentrating minds on voters more fully than on fellow politicians. It is also arguable that the main parties' acquiescence in the safe seat effect means that they target 'winnable' seats and so have recreated a version of 'rotten boroughs' where most of us don't have a vote that means anything. Such a situation creates the apathy, disengagement and sometimes anger that parties such as the BNP can exploit.

If we want to diminish and dilute the influence of the likes of the BNP we need a more democratic system not less. An appropriate PR system is part of the solution not a further potential problem.

For further information I refer you here.