tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38067964.post1266021888955574532..comments2008-06-29T10:16:03.181+01:00Chris Paulhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15679067503215414300noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38067964.post-1388286119168553292008-06-29T10:16:00.000+01:002008-06-29T10:16:00.000+01:00Hi. For the first time in my life, I think you are right. Most of those who previously voted Labour will have stayed at home (although there will have been some who chose to support a different Party). Think back to 1997 - Conservative voters abstained in huge numbers and consequently the Labour victory was magnified. Even a brief analysis of the turnout and number of votes gained by party between the 1992 and 1997 demonstartes that the number of electors switching between Conservative and Labour was much smaller than popularly imagined. <BR/><BR/>My opinion is that those who vote BNP are, generally, those who live in areas where they feel 'surrounded', 'under threat' and abandoned by main-stream political parties. These people are much less likely to vote as they feel alienated - the BNP are effective at exploiting that sense and mobilising the disaffected. <BR/><BR/>Henley, despite its leafy suburb persona, has pockets of poverty and depravation which are/were ripe for the BNP to exploit. <BR/><BR/>The debate should, I suggest, focus much more on the LibDems failure to make progress. They opened their campaign office weeks before Boris resigned, completed a mailing exercise to every home shortly after and then, following the start of the actual by-election campaign, poured huge resources into Henley.<BR/><BR/>The modest increase in their vote share is scant reward for their efforts. The LibDem analysis I've read so far misses the obvious - they are today seen as being as useful as a chocolate fireguard.Benjaminnoreply@blogger.com