My nine vote landslide...

Andrew Brons Responds to Nick Griffin’s Letter

Posted by admin, on 1 August 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site

By Andrew Brons.

I have received a letter from Nick Griffin, dated the day after the result of the leadership election was declared – the counting for which he did not consider a sufficiently important event for him to attend.

Mr. Griffin was in Belgium on the day of the count and the day after it, so the letter was either written before the count had been conducted, or it was written by Pat Harrington on his behalf.

In this letter, he claimed to have received “a clear mandate” in the leadership election.

In fact he received 50.19% of the votes cast (just over 30% of those entitled to vote), compared with my 49.80% of the votes cast (just under 30% of those entitled to vote) – a majority of just nine (9) votes.

This was in an election in which the membership list was under the control of his daughter, so the Returning Officer agreed to carry out checks on a random sample of the votes cast and on those thirty-nine (39) who voted despite the fact that their names were not on the printed list of members but were verified as voting members, by his daughter, by telephone.

I suggest no impropriety about the process but I believe that we should await the Returning Officer’s inquiry before we describe a nine (9) vote victory, in such an election, as providing “a clear mandate.”

Even with a verified nine vote majority, he is a Chairman with a mandate that has been damaged severely.

There were clear rules, for the leadership contest, drawn up by our Chairman and his employee, National Liberal Party member and multi-culturalist, Patrick Harrington.

These rules were adhered to by me and my team but were brazenly broken by Nick Griffin and his team.

In a Griffinite Britain, the Government would not need to feel inhibited by any nonsense about the Rule of Law!

His letter was written in the most patronising style as though he had won an overwhelming majority of those entitled to vote.

He revealed his desire to micro-manage the Party and the European operation by going into absurd detail about the design of the leaflet that I am planning for the EU Referendum Campaign.

The problem our Chairman fails to address is that 70% of the voting members either voted for the removal of the incumbent Chairman or were so disaffected and indifferent that they could not be bothered to vote.

I have spent the last week trying to dissuade alienated members from breaking up their membership cards and either joining other parties or simply giving up politics forever.

Either he does not realise the impending haemorrhage of members and, in particular activists, or he would prefer his critics to leave.

Those planning to leave should remember that our Chairman faces many legal and financial hurdles over the next few months, beginning with the response of the Electoral Commission to the failure, yet again, of the Party to submit accounts on time.

This will be followed by:

- The police investigation into (alleged) false declarations about electoral expenses for the Barking campaign in 2010;

- The case in which the ‘Decembrists’ will seek costs (of £45,000, rising to £120,000) against our Chairman;

- The Michaela Mackenzie case;

- The county court judgment secured by Romac; and

- The action against the Party by the Royal Mail.

Any of these would make his position untenable in a normal party. Collectively, they will make his position precarious, even in our Party.

Our Chairman must persuade his critics to stay or we shall not have activists to distribute our literature or conduct our campaigns. He will not have members to pay his outstanding bills.