A REFLECTION ON THE PROLIFE PARTY'S 2004 EUROPEAN ELECTION PERFORMANCE
By Richard Marsden, editor of Student LifeNet
The Pro-Life Party (PLP) has expressed its disappointment at the lack of media coverage it received prior to the elections to the European Parliament last week.
The Party fielded candidates in three of the twelve UK regions and got a total of 20,393 votes altogether.In the North West region, it gained a total of 10,084 votes, beating an independent candidate.In the Eastern region, they achieved 3,730 whilst in the South East, they collected 6,579, beating another independent.
However, it was nowhere near gaining a sufficient proportion of the vote to have an MEP elected. But the PLP, standing in the European elections for the first time, believes it could have gained more votes if it had more resources and publicity.
It is frustrated about the amount of media coverage the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) received thanks to the "celebrity status" of one of its candidates standing in the East Midlands, Robert Kilroy Silk.
Julia Millington, Political Director of the Pro Life Party, who stood in the North West region, had mixed feelings about the results. She said: "On the one hand, we did very well despite our limited resources. In the North West, we delivered 20,000 leaflets for an electorate of five and a half million people. So, we were able to generate support which was good despite having hardly any media coverage.
"Also, our membership has begun to grow as a result of the elections. Some people have seen us on the ballot paper and have decided to join us.
"But, it is all down to the amount of publicity that the other parties are able to generate and we could have competed with them if we would have had sufficient coverage."
In the run up to the election, the PLP had yet another battle with the BBC over its initial refusal to put the party's website address on its 'Vote 2004' online section. BBC Online refused to put a link to the PLP's website, even though other parties considered "controversial", such as the British National Party, had their website listed. A spokesperson for the BBC said that the reason for the decision was because it included images of aborted foetuses which it considered as offensive and against "taste and decency". However, days before the election, an agreement was reached between the party and the BBC as long as the website contained warnings of the images.
The party feels that this delay may also have cost them votes. It is not the first time there has been disagreement between the BBC and the PLP. In 2001, the BBC censored a Party election broadcast by the PLP, which was due to show pictures of the abortion procedure and of aborted foetuses.
Senior figures in the PLP will meet in the next few weeks to decide what strategies to take in next year's probable general election.
By Richard Marsden, editor of Student LifeNet.
PLEASE NOTE: Student LifeNet does not officially endorse any political party. This article is a commentary piece reflecting a personal opinion. We nevertheless support the ProLife Party's aims to uphold the right to life.
