The BNP is contesting 562, or 19.8% of the seats in the local elections on Thursday. This is a large increase on the 6.8% of seats they contested last year, although because fewer seats are up for election in numbers terms it is a drop from 717 to 562.
Of the wards BNP are contesting, only 13 are they not being contested by a Conservative and in 9 by Labour. The Liberal Democrats are not fighting the BNP in 126 of the wards. Why aren't the Lib Dems as committed to fighting BNP as the other parties?
UPDATE 7pm: Well this post has certainly provoked a backlash. Perhaps I could reassure my LibDem friends that I was not accusing them of being anything other than incompetent. In my view the BNP must be taken on wherever they stand. Not to put up candidates in those seats is self defeating and merely restricts the voter's options. The LibDems are often the "none of the above" party and could well take votes from BNP candidates. I just don't buy the argument about not splitting the anti-BNP vote. I accept that the LibDems do not have the depth of resources of the other parties and that local candidates are ncreasingly hard to find. But surely it ought to be a priority to put up a candidate against the BNP, even if it is a paper one?