ThunderDragon Blog

The rise of the BNP is Hazel Blears fault. But not hers alone. It is the fault of all mainstream polticians. Because they have neglected sections of the electorate. She is right when she says that:

shouting ‘Nazi’ is not the answer…

We must recognise that where the BNP wins votes, it is often a result of local political failure.

Estates that have been ignored for decades; voters taken for granted; local services that have failed; white working-class voters who feel politicians live on a different planet. In such a political vacuum, the BNP steps in with offers of grass-cutting, a listening ear and easy answers to complex problems.

Like has been said by myself and Sayeed Warsi [and a large number of other Conservatives], we must engage with BNP voters. We must expose their policies for what they are. As I said then, and also more recently [I'm copying and pasting because I can't be bothered to re-write it]:

People don’t vote for the BNP because they’re racist, but because they have concerns that are not being addressed by any other party because of ‘political correctness’.

The Conservatives - and all major political parties - must address the prime reason why people vote for the BNP - and that is because they feel ignored. They have some legitimate concerns about crime, justice, and immigration which the main parties aren’t addressing and thus they feel ignored. If we listen to the voters - the vast majority of whom aren’t racists - then we can convince them that the BNP are not the party who can deal with the problems they are concerned with, but just a bunch of racists and bigots.

Ignoring them just because they have the stigma of the label “BNP voter” attached to them is not an option in a democracy. They are still part of the electorate. Just ignoring them is what caused the problem in the first place. If we listen to, and engage with, them then they will no longer feel any need to go and vote for the BNP - and they will thus wither and die as they should. But if we continue to ignore their concerns, the BNP will just gain more support. We must act now to stop it - and this is the only way.

And now it seems that Hazel Blears has come around to our way of thinking…

I really couldn’t care less about the publication of a list of BNP members. I mean, seriously, who cares? Let’s make this clear: the BNP are a legitimate political party. However distasteful we may find their political beliefs, they have a right to hold them and to be a member of a political party that supports them.

Rather than threatening BNP members/voters, we should engage with them. Yes, we should. If we don’t, we can’t destroy the racist elements. Political parties must address the prime reason why people vote for the BNP - and that is because they feel ignored. If we listen to the voters - the vast majority of whom aren’t racists - then we can convince them that the BNP are not the party who can deal with the problems they are concerned with, but just a bunch of racists and bigots.

Ignoring them just because they have the stigma of the label “BNP voter” attached to them is not an option in a democracy. They are still part of the electorate. Just ignoring them is what caused the problem in the first place. If we listen to, and engage with, them then they will no longer feel any need to go and vote for the BNP - and they will thus wither and die as they should. But if we continue to ignore their concerns, the BNP will just gain more support.

The very concept that it could be sackable offence to be a member of a legitimate political party is nothing short of disgusting. Especially when the police and prison services have been told to actively “root out” BNP members.

The national policies are clear that membership of the BNP is incompatible with the requirements of the role of a police officer (IPPC)

How, precisely? So long as they leave their politics at home and do their job properly, how does it make any difference? Unless it is expected that no police officers ever be a member of any political party, of course - which is patently ridiculous.

Democracy demands that there is freedom of political beliefs. As soon as membership of a specific legitimate political party is proscribed, democracy begins to fail. Parliament must stand up for democracy and pass a law demanding that membership of a political party is no bar in itself to any profession, or democracy will begin to fail.

Anyone who believes that such membership disqualifies anyone from any profession is an anti-democrat.

The BNP are mentioned in three stories I have seen in the newspapers [well, on their websites - I don't buy the paper versions any more or, in the case of the BBC, watch the broadcasts] today:

Firstly, the BNP are rejected by UKIP after they proposed an electoral pact at next years European elections with UKIP focusing on the South and the BNP in the North.

Quite rightly, too. The BNP must not be allowed any lee-way to get any form of representaton anywhere. All parties must fight against them at the polls.

Secondly, trade unions want to be able to expel BNP members. As far as I can see, they have no real reasons to be do this except because they want to.

I don’t like the BNP, but as I have said before, banning them and refusing them their right to their own political beliefs and association helps no-one. We should rather engage them in dialogue and expose them that way. For as long as the BNP remain a legitimate political party, they must not be banned for their political beliefs, however disgusting they are.

And thirdly, BNP voters are thick, having an IQ level at the age of 10 of 98.4. Even those who don’t vote had an IQ of 99.7.

Of course this piece of “news” means little*, espiecally since what this study hasn’t done though is provide any form of correlation with their IQ now. But it does kind of make the point of the type of people who vote BNP…

* Especially with the “fact” that Lib Dem voters had an IQ of 108.2 at 10 - if they’re so clever, why don’t they vote for a party that could actually win?

As the Northern Monkey, I very much enjoyed watching This is England last night on Film Four.

I particularly enjoyed the scene in the shoe shop, where the idea that these boots had come from London was of great prestige - that place often talked about, never visited. Things have moved on a bit since the 80s in which the film was set - we do now occasionally visit the big smoke, so know the idea of anything special coming from down there is a daft idea.

I also liked the way that the shop assistant addressed Shaun’s (main character) mother as “Mum”. I did that not so long ago on a St John duty (”Can I just have a word with you please Mum?”), so am left wondering if it is a Northern thing or of some Southern Pansies do it also?

Anyway, enough about Northern roots - the film. BAFTA Best British Film 2008, it is a very emotive film by Director and Writer Shane Meadows. No point in writing my own synopsis when Film Four’s own does the job perfectly:

Twelve-year-old Shaun hooks up with a bunch of fun-loving skinheads during the long hot summer of 1983, until the spectre of racism drives the group apart. Shane Meadows’ most personal film to date.
At 12-years-old, and young-looking even for his age, Shaun Fields (Turgoose) looks hardly capable of breaking and entering a boiled egg. As elder skinhead Combo (Graham) jokes, he looks like “he came out of a box, like an Action Man, or Barbie doll”. Shaun’s loss of innocence is at the heart of Shane Meadows’ most autobiographical work to date (notice how ‘Shaun Fields’ deliberately echoes ‘Shane Meadows’), along with ever-relevant subjects like absent and surrogate fathers, Western imperialism and white working-class marginalisation, particularly in the post-industrial suburbs.

Unintentionally, it’s very easy to draw parallels with the 21st Century in which we currently live.

Shaun lost his father in the Falkland’s war, and this made him very vulnerable. Perhaps particularly receptive to the ideas of the National Front, and easily persuaded that their cause was Nationalism, not Racism. The BNP are the next generation of the NF, how many people are supporting them as a result of a deep personal dissatisfaction with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Immigration is, once again, high on the agenda. The phrase “Coming over here, taking our jobs” could easily have been said in the film, just as it is today.

The political climate in 1983 was a productive breeding ground for the National Front, and This is England showed - dramatically - the effect such beliefs can have. I dare venture that the present political climate isn’t that far removed from 25 years ago.

As a film review - I rarely say much for fear of spoilers, but it comes with Asp’s high recommendations - a deeply emotive British drama, the style of independent film that we do exceptionally well, and this was no exception. It made me think, about the issues of the day, which is what a good film should do.

~Asp

Who are the “true Londoners”? Please stand up. Well, whoever you are, BNP London Assembly member Richard Barnbrook will apparently be you “voice”.

That’s the problem with using the qualitative term “true“. No-one knows who they are - even the person using the phrase. Basically, it is anyone who agrees with you. If they don’t, then they are ‘obviously’ not true members of that group.

That Barnbrook’s group of “true Londoners” want to ban the burkha shows what a limited group this is. His little group of “true Londoners” obviously aren’t actually representative of London at all.

Sayeeda Warsi is accused of “pandering to racists” when she said:

What she says is perfectly reasonable. We shouldn’t just write off those who are voting for the BNP, and they do have some legitimate concerns. That is the reason that they vote for the BNP - because they have concerns which are not being addressed by any of the major parties.

That Sayeeda Warsi is willing to engage with them is a good thing, not a bad thing, and fits in perfectly with her position as Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion. She is quite obviously trying to bridge the gap between those who feel ignored by the main parties and thus vote for a racist party like the BNP instead. People don’ vote for the BNP because they’re racist, but because they have concerns that are not being addressed by any other party because of ‘political correctness’.

The Conservatives - and all major political parties - must address the prime reason why people vote for the BNP - and that is because they feel ignored. They have some legitimate concerns about crime, justice, and immigration which the main parties aren’t addressing and thus they feel ignored. If we listen to the voters - the vast majority of whom aren’t racists - then we can convince them that the BNP are not the party who can deal with the problems they are concerned with, but just a bunch of racists and bigots.

Ignoring them just because they have the stigma of the label “BNP voter” attached to them is not an option in a democracy. They are still part of the electorate. Just ignoring them is what caused the problem in the first place. If we listen to, and engage with, them then they will no longer feel any need to go and vote for the BNP - and they will thus wither and die as they should. But if we continue to ignore their concerns, the BNP will just gain more support. We must act now to stop it - and this is the only way.

UPDATE: Devil’s Kitchen agrees with me, and Norfolk Blogger doesn’t.

Image: Sayeeda Warsi
Source: The Independent

Today I received an email [forwarded on a mailing list that should not be used for this purpose] claiming to have uncovered “KKK propaganda and calls to ‘hang golliwogs’ on BNP Facebook groups”. It links - well, rather it does in a painstakingly indirect way - to a petition to get the BNP off Facebook. The email, also a press release on their website, says:

Well yes, one group does have a picture of “Ku Klux Klan members with a sword with the subtitle “Local BNP meeting, blacks welcome”.” It also has an “image spelling out I.S.L.A.M. with the “S” standing for slaughter, “A” standing for Arson.” In the image, the “I” stands for Intolerance - which is precisely what this group are arguing for. Intolerance of a reprehensible ideology, yes, but still - they have the right to be able to express themselves. I’m not denying that certainly the first image is disgusting, but I don’t think that it means that the BNP as an organisation should be banned from Facebook.

The Facebook Terms of Use state, under “User Conduct” that

So Facebook can remove the offensive imagery and text. They should do that. But that these are BNP groups does not mean that the BNP as an organisation should be banned from using this, or any other, social networking site.

They are a legitimate political party. We may find many of their policies and the opinions of many members [which may or may not represent the majority] frankly disgusting, but for as long as they are allowed to stand as a political party, they have the right to make use of these sorts of resources.

To say that they, as an entire organisation, should be banned from Facebook is an extremely dictatorial and excessive overreaction to the problem - and the sort that these people would like to enact against the groups they hate. The BNP are best combated with reasoned arguments and disdain for their views. Holding a petition to have them banned from an internet site just helps them by polarising opinion, making it either for or against.

Saying that “the BNP’s views pose a direct threat and are offensive to many Facebook users” is utter bullshit - you only come across them if you go looking at their groups - I never had until researching for this post. It’s like peering through someone’s bedroom window and then complaining to the police that you saw them naked. Anyone who signs the petition is, frankly, a bit of an idiot. All you are doing is giving the BNP the oxygen of publicity. Let them rot in a dark, dank corner instead.