YouTube - The Constitution of the BNP
[Rep]

What an idiot :-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by bulter:
YouTube - The Constitution of the BNP

A very good short film, bulter. The BNP constitution is an absolute horror.

Anyone who wishes to take a look without contributing anything to Colin Auty's campaign can link here:x
[Rep]

The British National Party News | Important General Members’ Meeting 17 August 2008

This shows that a vote will take place in 2 weeks for members to change the constitution and how the leaders are elected.

The constitution is available to all members from the media officers on request as explained BNP member’s forum for members only. The new revised system offers a change in method of notification of any changes to the Constitution to “or publication on the party’s official website.
[Rep]

When one considers the nature of the motley membership of the BNP I suppose it’s not unreasonable for The Welsh Dragin' (named after his knuckles) to be The Great Dictator, since left to themselves they are capable of anything.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
The British National Party News | Important General Members’ Meeting 17 August 2008

This shows that a vote will take place in 2 weeks for members to change the constitution and how the leaders are elected.

How democratic.... who decided the wording of the changes to the constitution again?

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
The constitution is available to all members from the media officers on request as explained BNP member’s forum for members only.

Or, you could read the article posted by The Nationalist and realise that you can download the official version from the BNP site here. Finally.

Here is a natty thought.

Bearing in mind that a copy of the official Constitution has now been made available from the BNP website, and that all the wording for any potential changes to that constitution is now public knowledge, is there any reason to hide the constitution at all from non-members from this point on?

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
The new revised system offers a change in method of notification of any changes to the Constitution to “or publication on the party’s official website.

Gee. Thanks. Giving the Chairman the ability to change parts of the constitution at will is fine as long as we have the wonderful transparency of telling members about it after it has happened.

How new. How innovative.

I like this proposal though:

Originally Posted by :
S.4.9. If an outgoing National Chairman is a paid employee of the party and either does not wish to remain as such or is not required as such by the new incumbent, he shall receive severance pay in line with the statutory requirement, plus one month for each year served up to a total of eight years, and one week extra for each year thereafter.

Did I read that right? An outgoing Chairman will get statutory severance pay PLUS an additional months pay for each year served (up to a total of eight years) PLUS an extra weeks pay for each year served over and above 8 years.

Please do point out any errors in the calculations below, I'm not sure I've understood the wording of the proposal correctly. Particularly the pay that is above and beyond the statutory pay... is it based on the actual pay level of the Chairman, or the statutory maximum of £330 per week? I've not taken into account any paid service for the BNP Griffin was doing before he became the Chairman, this would of course only add to his potential windfall.

Currently then, assuming he stays in the job until 2009, Griffin would be entitled to £4,620 (14 weeks) severance pay (calculated here, Griffin is 49, would have been in the job for 10 years, and I very much doubt he is on less than £330 per week.).

Not much really. But here is the slightly confusing bit. In addition to that, Griffin gets an extra 4 weeks pay for each year served up to eight years. According to the maximum statutory payout (the proposed wording is ambiguous, so I'll just use the statutory figures rather than guess at what Griffin is being paid) that would be £330 * 4 * 8 = £10,560.

On top of that he would get another weeks' pay for each year served above 8 years. Again, on the understanding he has served a full 10 years in the job, this equates to £330 * 2 = £660.

£4,620 + £10,560 + £660 = £15,480 for being voted out. That is the membership fee of 516 standard paying members.

Hope my maths is OK, as well as my understanding of the pay out.
[Rep]

I would not mind donating my money directly to Nick griffin if he wants it.

For the work he does and the hate campaigns against him for offering democracy to Britain he should be at least £100,000 a year but if Nick griffin was in it for the money he would have joined other parties and just go with the flow of political correctness.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
I would not mind donating my money directly to Nick griffin if he wants it.

For the work he does and the hate campaigns against him for offering democracy to Britain he should be at least £100,000 a year but if Nick griffin was in it for the money he would have joined other parties and just go with the flow of political correctness.

It would be your prerogative to donate to Mr. N. Griffin directly, but do you assume that all the members feel the same?

As it stands, I would think most of the money goes directly to Mr. N. Griffin and those who are close to him anyway.
He certainly has control of the purse strings.

What happens to the money from the Trafalgar Club?
The money that Civil Liberty raises, where does that go?


I cannot see where he is offering 'democracy to Britain' either and a tightening of the constitution, by The Leader, for The Leader, in no way looks democratic to me.
[Rep]

The BNP manifesto, democracy section states:

“We believe in a return to traditional British freedoms and want the people to be the masters, not the politicians. The iniquity of Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on issues that only affect England has angered many English people and needs to be resolved to prevent a break-up of the Union. The BNP is Britain’s most Democratic Party.”

The party offers: the introduce an English parliament within the United Kingdom, Devolve powers to the lowest local level possible, Introduce citizen-initiated referenda whose outcome is binding on parliament.

You can not get more democratic than that and the other parties are worried they would lose all there power over the public. The main policies in the manifesto can be changed on public opinion when we come to power and many won’t be put in place until public referenda.

The exact expense an income of the party is here:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.u...ounts-2007.pdf

One thing I do notice is that we spend more on staff than UKIP and the Green Party but we do have more members by looking at membership subscription fees.

£140,882 is not a lot of money for staff especially when compared with the Liberal democrat’s £1,446,483 staff costs.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
The party offers: the introduce an English parliament within the United Kingdom, Devolve powers to the lowest local level possible, Introduce citizen-initiated referenda whose outcome is binding on parliament.

If, as a party, the BNP really does want to devolve powers to the lowest possible level, why does it not actually operate like that as a party? The Manifesto is in direct contradiction to the Constitution of the party as the party is arranged so as to empower the Chairman to do direct the party according to his will, regardless of what the 'Advisory Council' wants anyway.

Why should I believe that if the BNP got into power that they would devolve power to the lowest possible level when this is demonstrably not how the party operates?

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
You can not get more democratic than that and the other parties are worried they would lose all there power over the public.

I actually agree that in principle, devolving power to local level is a Good Thing. I don't agree that the other parties are quaking in their boots just yet though.

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
The main policies in the manifesto can be changed on public opinion when we come to power and many won’t be put in place until public referenda.

What are you saying here? That if the BNP achieves power, you will dump the manifesto pledges you made only by referendum? What else will the referenda be about? Perhaps you'd like to change "voluntary repatriation" for immigrants to Britain to "forced repatriation", is that it? If the general public, by referendum, told the BNP that they wanted to get rid of Muslims altogether, even the ones born here, what would be the final solution to that problem?

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
One thing I do notice is that we spend more on staff than UKIP and the Green Party but we do have more members by looking at membership subscription fees.

You must be joking. The BNP is a very expensive party to join. To discern the amount of members a party has, count the members, not the money.

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
£140,882 is not a lot of money for staff especially when compared with the Liberal democrat’s £1,446,483 staff costs.

You are not comparing like with like.

Let us look at the notes to the accounts of the BNP, The Greens, UKIP and the Lib Dems.

BNP had 13 members of staff (even though the Chairman lists only 8 key members of staff, a strange anomaly amongst the party accounts I've loked at) costing £140,882, giving an average wage of £10,837. These people are not capable of producing a true and fair account of their finances according to their auditors and are supporting roughly 58 elected councillors. (Apparently it is hard to tell how many councillors the BNP have had elected, I'm going off a recent BBC estimation) report. OF course, the staffing costs listed in the Accounts do not include any costs related to self-employed people who invoice the BNP for work undertaken. Mark Collet appears to be at least one person who does this through Vanguard Promotions.

The Green Party accounts inform us that are 4.6 members of staff which cost £104,490, giving an average of £22,715. These people appear capable of producing a true and fair account of their finances according to their auditors and are supporting 110 elected councillors. Can't see any mention of how many members the Green Party has.

The UKIP party accounts inform us that there are 15,878 members, 8 members of staff costing £81,088, an average of £10,136. These people appear capable of producing a true and fair account of their finances according to their auditors. Not sure how many councilors these guys have.

As for the Lib Dems. £1,446,483 covers 41 staff, giving an average wage of £35,280. These people appear capable of producing a true and fair account of their finances according to their auditors. They support 4,500 councillors, 78 members of the House of Lords, 16 MSPs, 6 members of the Welsh Assemby, and 3 Members of the GLA. It seems the Lib Dems are generous with pension, training and travel costs, all of which are key to keeping hold of talented, committed people.

Care to comment on the value for money BNP members are getting from their 13 members of staff?
[Rep]