you clearly are of very limited capabilities as these stats have been available since the election where i linked to .. not that hard to think that Hnh and UAF would publish them was it??? and so all that time you have been bullshitting?? yes simply
and yes now you admit you put prejudice before analysis - incredible ..
"So I have posted stats which are relevant for the political position I am supporting - there is nothing unusual in this" ..
yes there is - it is politically, intelectually and academically wrong. It is bullshit it is dishonest and it has has distorted and disrupted real analysis of the strengths and weknesses of the bnp ..
Oh great and glorious leader (but you have no clothes
Doh!! Of course I haven't analysed everywhere - i have a life FFS
I have posted stats up from around the country on other threads, and I
reproduce some of my stats below for you. I am awfully sorry for not producing comprehensive stats (if somebody wants to pay us £30k a year pro rata I could).
I have put something in italics above which is pure bullshit/baloney from start to finish. Now I am not going to point out that the spelling you used makes you look stupid, because the meaning of the sentance (despite your efforts to camoflage it by bad spelling) is what is worth criticising.
Anybody with any knowledge knows that you produce an argument to back up your theory, stats can be part of this. You do not produce stats to back up somebody elses' theory! Doh!! If that is not too difficult for you, then you should have realised that the intellectual and academic integrity is in the stats I have produced/used to back up the points I am making.
Now Ok so far. So you have said that your intention was to provide analysis of "analysis of the strengths and weknesses of the bnp". You do so by pointing out how 'well' they are doing, providing selective stats.
Now, my priority has been, and is evidenced from below, is to look at the real level of importance of the BNP in areas where they are standing AND
areas where they are not. My priority, as always, is to explain what is happening in ways which make sense. Considering the bigger picture where they are still an irrelevance. In the last few years they have gone from completely marginal to totally irrelevant
So rather than focus on the BNP alone, I look at the larger political picture which, to my mind, is important, as if you focus with an obsessive fetishisation on the BNP alone your sense of what is happening in the wider world is skewed. This in turn, affects the range of responses you are going to think are the priority. That, I do detect very clearly with the likes of Gary O'Shea and other anti fascist analysts, whose political knowledge and relationships with the wider world are non existent..
"Here is the analysis I did - did you forget? They spread themselves around and have no chance of winning any. Look at their highest vote, in 1 of their 3 core areas. Adam Walker got 32.18% for the BNP - BUT labour got nearly 60%!!! The BNP are never going to win that seat and that is their best vote, which rapidly declines out of their 3 core areas. Their other votes in County Durham are rubbish.
Durham County Council May 2008 - 126 seats up for grabs and BNP challenged in 30 of them. You cast 2 votes, and so I have added 2 bnp votes together and divided by 2.
Aycliffe East 2 (seats up for grabs) - 13.31%
Bishop 2 -5.51%
Brandon 2 - 8.63%
Chilton (local BNP base) 2 (inc 1 of their stars Adam Walker) - 32.18% Labour won here with 57.99% almost twice as much.
Crook South 1 - 7.65%
Deerness Valley 2 - 7.76%
Durham South 1 - 3.73%
Ferryhill 2 - 11.52%
Framwellgate moor 1 - 4.13%
Gilesgate 1 - 1.76%
Sedgefield 2 - 5.45%
Shildon East 2 - 12.56%
Shildon West 2 - 12.98%
Spennymoor 2 (another base) - 26.36%
Trimdon 2 - 12.37%
Tudhoe 2 (another base) - 28.88%
Willington 2 - 5.71%
= average vote of 12.79%.
HOWEVER take out their 6 base wards of the 30 and you get 24 seats where their average vote is 8.7%. So you take 3 areas out of the 17 districts, which leaves over 80% (82.35% to be exact) of Durham with an average BNP vote of 8.7%.
I cannot see how you can explain the vast differences in BNP vote levels any other way than via a cultural materialist one, and combined and uneven development of consciousness. In Gilesgate the BNP get 1.76%, a bit down the road they are getting 32.18%. These differences are local conditions, which is the combined and uneven development of consciousness, across a wide area their average vote is 8.7% which is a level that they 'should' be at if objective conditions were dominant everywhere."
p.s. so the north west strategey of HnH / UAF is not doing so good is it?
