A Legitimate BNP?

The BNP are going to be ‘legitimised’ next week when it’s leader, Nick Griffin, appears on Questiontime. Well, that’s the opinion of some people. In fact, the BNP have become legitimised the moment they started gaining more and more councillors and the moment just under 1,000,000 people voted two of their members into the European Parliament. Don’t get me wrong, the BNP make me sick, my loyal reader would have realised that of me.

But the point is, i actually think it is not a bad thing that Nick Griffin is to appear on Questiontime. My opinion is that everyone already has an opinion about the BNP. I also think that there is more scope for the Left to claw back those working class votes from the BNP than it is for the BNP to increase its vote. (Note how i have said working class; there is a debate, rightly so, over whether the BNP are fascistor not (and even left wing or not) and the fact that the BNP appeal to the working classes whilst fascists is traditionally based in middle class support is the pendulum in this debate). If the BNP was to be denied the opportunity to make a representation on Questiontime, then it will all but re-enforce their notion that the liberal, left-wing media are keeping them at bay in order to repress true ‘indigenous’ working class opinion.

The thing is with Griffin is that although he is a clever PR man, he is still an idiot (hint: his policies give this away). So he is likely to make a twit out of himself on national television. Well, that if there was a strong panel going against him.

And this is a debate that has been going on on LibCon. It seems a lot of on Left only see the inclusion of Sayeeda Warsi and to a lesser extent, Jack Straw, as the only ones on the panel who will effectively combat Griffin (if that is an issue at all considering his idiocy). However, a recent blog post on the Guardian website by Hugh Muir has suggested that his fellow MPs have warned Straw to not call him a racist or a fascist because it would anger the BNPs voters, many of them ex-Labour voters and as such diminish the possibility of Labour winning those voters back (as minimal chance they have in their current state).

In my opinion, i think there should be a more working class, socialist member on the panel, perhaps somebody associated with the movement to create a new workers party. It is the socialists who stand the best chance of beating the BNP, not by dismissing them as fascists, but by appealing to working class issues. We just have to see if the new workers party (already with some previous Labour supporting Trade Union backing) will work. Otherwise, bring in fellow MEP Caroline Lucas. Across the country in the recent European elections it was the Green Party who fought the BNP the closest (and got more votes than them), and it is the Green Party who are the most mainstream left-wing party in Britain at the moment. It would be magnificent to see Lucas ripping Griffin intellectually to shreds on national tv. But then i might be a bit bias….

What’s Left; What’s Right

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.” – J. Krishnamurti,

An interesting debate has ensued from the corners of the Liberal Conspiracy website and the BNP’s two European election successes that have led to me to question my presentation of political understanding. That is; what is left, what is right?

It is true that when talking about the BNP we (that includes me) correctly use the term far-right (ultra-nationalist, fascist and racist are also accurate). But then again, are they? Tim Montgomerie, a conservative, has written a letter to the BBC to ask them to properly reflect the BNP’s ‘true’ ideological position on the political spectrum. He argues that instead of being classed as far-right they should be considered far-left. And depending on which way you look at it and the level of your political ignorance, he could have a point. Economically the BNP are a party who believe in big state, in nationalisation, in government intervention and protectionism- traditional positions attributed to the left and socialism. (In essence, their ideology stems from Strasserist economics- that money and big companies are being controlled by the Jews, but then also remember that Karl Marx once wrote: “Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand… The God of the Jews has become secularised and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange”).

On the flipside, the left (including general liberalism) have been more open to encompass ideologies such as freedom of movement and expression, civil liberties, human rights. These are certainly not what the BNP stand for. Contrary to this we see New Labour who is considered as centre-left bringing about the destruction of civil liberties and the Tories have become the self-proclaimed vanguard of them. Is this left/right wing politics getting muddled? (Maybe the Tories are just fighting ‘big state’?).

One way of looking upon this is the humble evolution of the political compass. During the Cold War it was a case of you being left, right or centre. Now when you take a simple online quiz to find out what you are you have a Z axis, Y axis, X axis and the other one that no-one can remember the name. You still have the typical left/right wing axis, but now you also have the social axis – authoritarian and libertarian.

Perhaps this is a consequence of the troubles with Stalinism. He was supposed to be left wing, communist in fact, which places him traditionally on the far-left, but the repression he placed upon his people and even his own party members makes him extremely authoritarian. So socially links could be made between the BNP and Stalinism, but they can also begin to be made when it comes to economic policies. But if Stalin was indeed a communist (open to debate but I say no) then does that mean the BNP are?

The fact that the BNP are touted as pulling in a lot of the New Labour vote looks like it supports this idea. The left look towards the working class as the majority, they say the working classes represent the repressed majority. The BNP are directing policies towards the working classes and are also saying they are representing the repressed majority, albeit in a racist way by describing the ridiculous notion of the repressed ‘indigenous’ white majority.

Nick Griffin himself describes the BNP as being outside of left/right wing politics. They choose (sick) issues and (sick) policies that they believe in and to them they don’t fit anywhere on the spectrum.

However no-one wants to be associated with the BNP. Even though some of the centre-right are calling the BNP far-right they are much more in favour of pushing them off to the far-left like Montgomerie is trying to do. One example you can find on comment sections on blogs is by using the name ‘national socialism’ (Nazis) as an example of them being socialist (obviously the same way that the German Democratic Republic was indeed democratic…). In turn the left are pushing them to the far-right. Neither side want to be associated with them, but both sides want the other side to be. To have the BNP be on ‘your’ wing is to announce to the world that what you believe in is only a few doors away from them.

Perhaps Mr Griffin is actually right for a change. Perhaps they don’t belong on either side. Perhaps there is more to politics than left and right. Why is it that people are always classed as left/right/centre?

I personally do class myself as left wing, most things I believe in stem from the left wing ideology. I am proud of ‘belonging’ to the left. However, I don’t associate myself in anyway with New Labour, Stalinism or if they can be considered to be, the BNP- even though they are supposed to also be on the left. Perhaps what we need is this scraping of the left/right associations. The world and politics existed before left/right wing terminology was used, indeed the terminology first evolved with in France and then through Marxist ideology. It also stems from a Cold War positioning, us and them. A way to explain what is happening and what you believe. But why do things have to be so black and white? Even with the new direction political compasses’ are taking people still want to place you on either the left or right with the only alterations being ‘far-‘ and centre-‘.

Taking away these associations is not going to lead to the destruction of left/right ideology and everything in between. Instead it could lead to increased political freedom and understanding. If you are on the left and you like one specific policy from the right, you no longer need to try and ‘reclaim it for the left’. You won’t be bound by thinking ‘I can’t believe in that because it’s a right wing position and I’m on the left. In essence you can pick and choose policies that fit the world or your country best without fear of ‘selling out to the left/right’. These theoretical positions bind us down. Removing the word ‘left wing’ from my thinking is not going to mean that I don’t believe in nationalising the banks anymore, nor does it mean that I think we should tax the rich less, but what it does mean is that it takes away a mental wall that allows others in. Go round telling people you’re left wing then half the world won’t listen to you because they’re right wing, but tell people that your policies and beliefs develop to the needs and best interests of the people you serve then people are more likely to listen. As Krishnamurti said, “When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence”.

[this piece is intended for discussion, debate and evolution]

In the wake of fascism…

So now the dust has settled on a night labelled as ‘a punishment to the left in Europe’ and we find ourselves with two ultra-nationalist fascist salesmen ‘representing’ us in the European Parliament.

The first reactions from anyone on the left are going to be one of disbelief and shock; I am guilty to early morning bouts of hysteria. However, as the day has passed and the events of the previous night have sunk in my understanding of the future of British politics has developed into a new kind of comprehension and hope.

Let me start with the cons of having Brons and Griffin as MEP’s. The first is that they are there to represent us. Unlike UKIP who deliberately vote ‘no’ to every motion regardless of its benefit to the UK (including to EU plans to track child molesters), the BNP representatives in the name of indigenous British people (am I apart of this?) will happily vote on motions to put towards the European Commission that help bolster their racist message. On the upside, they are only two MEP’s out of a parliament of 736, but the diarrhoea will still be coming out of their mouths “on behalf of the indigenous British people”.

The most serious damage coming from the BNP result is that which is inflicted upon New Labour.  Their wins came at the expense of New Labour and their votes which will give New Labour the belief that they can win these voters back. New Labour Minister Andy Burnham has already said that “There are concerns about immigration… the Government have to get a response to those concerns”. As if the UK government’s immigration policy is not strict enough, it seems it will get ignorantly stricter to appease former New Labour voters.

Furthermore any hope of effective electoral reform is bound to be dashed now. Despite its flaws Proportional Representation is often touted as the best alternative to replace First Past the Post as the most commonly used system in the UK. However, as it was PR that allowed the BNP to win their seats the main parties can use this excuse to dismiss PR electoral reform. Here’s to the status quo, New Labour, Tory and LibDems leading the majorities in Westminster far into the future, all in the name of stopping the rise of fascism.

But then it is not all doom and gloom. Having two MEP’s is very much likely to destroy the BNP. By being forced more into the political mainstream their actions can be more widely scrutinised without the claims of ‘fringe party’ and ‘left-wing hysteria’ being thrown at them. During the BBC coverage of the EU election results Jeremy Vine suggested that current BNP councillors in places like Burnley had lost some of their support because the public could see how awful they were in local government. Times this with non-stop scrutiny throughout most of the major press for the next five years and we could well see the implosion of the BNP vote come 2014.

Importantly, it is a safe bet to suggest that a huge majority of those who thought about voting for BNP actually did so. The passion of racists who actually believe in the BNP’s message or those who just want to perform a serious protest vote would have voted. Any remaining votes the BNP would have got if everyone had voted will be small in number and so they will have to rely on selling their brand of racism even more effectively than they already have, unless the left are even better prepared.

Perhaps another plus point is that this could actually help destroy a part of the British public’s apathy. There are people I have spoken to who have accused me of hyping up the BNP threat, suggesting that people will not really vote for them to the extent to giving them any kind of serious representation. Well now that opinion will change, helped by the media hyping up the story. It may force people to go out and vote in the next elections because they are now recognised as a threat.

This could transcend to other ‘fringe’ parties who are considered too small to make a change, too small to vote for. Well now we see that the smaller parties do attract enough votes to win seats in elections. Granted this is a consequence of Proportional Representation, but it could offer that glimmer of hope, a glimmer that will benefit parties like the Greens. For too long the Greens have been pushed to the dark corners of the newspapers. Despite already having two MEP’s, their support ever increasing and the prospect of national electoral breakthrough in places like Brighton, the response of some mainstream media to the party is one of blankness. It is if they are too nice to really attract voters or of the ignorant belief that voters are bored of the ‘go green’ message, as if that is all the Green Party stands for. You can already see that the party to gain the biggest percentage increase in votes in the EU elections is the Green Party, going up 2.4%, much more than the Conservatives (+1%), UKIP (+0.3%) or the BNP (+1.3%).

The most important result of the BNP’s success is that this is going to re-energise the left and British politics. Brons and Griffin are now the biggest indication that ideology politics can still lead to success. The transparency between politicians, New Labour and the Tories has become so diluted that people are searching for an alternative and the only effectively marketed alternative has come from the far right. Well now is the chance for the left to learn from the BNP. Throughout the election campaign I heard nothing from any serious left-wing party (accept the Greens) without going out there to find out about parties myself. For those who are not interested in going to find these parties but still would vote then what chance do they have?

It is also a chance for the left to properly ‘unite’ against the BNP. Sure there are superb campaigns such as Hope Not Hate and Unite Against Fascism that have helped to do this to some extent, but there were still those on the left who did not believe that the BNP were any sort of a threat.  It is going to force the left together, it will be a case of unite or die, especially if the left really did take the sort of pounding around Europe that the EU results have suggested. (Here is a good article that suggests that across Europe the left did score more votes, but because there is more apparent unity on the right the vote was split between the different leftist parties- already one anarchist commentator has suggested that the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party are looking at some kind of ‘agreement’).

The next 5 years are going to be exciting, especially if the BNP win a few MP’s as well (I’d rather they do not), as British politics is going to be revitalised- ideology is going to start to rule again. Come the next election when New Labour get kicked out they are going to go through some soul searching to rediscover their leftist routes, far right politics is going to be acknowledged (if not accepted), and the need for a serious alternative is going to allow space for the left to speak up and be counted again.