BNP seat in London Assembly - 1 in 20 voters voted BNP

[The Black Hand]

You wouldn't think they were doing well even if they had 200 councillors.

And you will have cacked your pants by the time they got to 150.

 

[The Black Hand]

Or 2000

But you will have cacked your pants by the time they got to 149

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I think the non white / indiginous population of London is about 25%

Off the top of the head this makes it more like 1 in 16 white / indiginous voting fascist than 1 in 20

 

[frogwoman]

white people aren't the only ones to vote bnp, or even run for them ...

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

white people aren't the only ones to vote bnp, or even run for them ...

I know, i could give some anecdotes on the weirdo exceptions, but the white indiginous are the vast vast majority and I reckon my 1 in 16 guess is disturbingly close.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I haven't heard very much about how the BNP did in the other parts of the country, aside from the news on Friday tea time that they gained 12 seats. 5% of the poll in London is bad, and I wouldn't want to underestimate its significance, but it is not that high a figure.

Does this comparative silence about the votes outside the M25 goldfish bowl suggest that the BNP did not do very well?

Not really. Just because they statistically didn't do as well as they might have doesn't alter the salient fact that they've achieved a success in terms of legitimising their politics with the assembly seat.
What level of success they draw from it we won't know until the next round of local elections, but if they can "keep their noses clean", then they may at the very least be able to draw the votes of the other fringe-right parties on a larger scale.

 

[_angel_]

I haven't heard very much about how the BNP did in the other parts of the country, aside from the news on Friday tea time that they gained 12 seats. 5% of the poll in London is bad, and I wouldn't want to underestimate its significance, but it is not that high a figure.

Does this comparative silence about the votes outside the M25 goldfish bowl suggest that the BNP did not do very well?

5% isn't a very high share of the vote. The 'comparative silence' outside of London is mainly down to Londoncentric news and the obsession with the mayoral contest.

Although fortunately no councillors in Leeds the BNP received more like 16% of the vote in my local ward (which was down from last year when they were second in my area on about 25%)






eta: although they have one seat on the council despite apparently not winning any actually elected councillors. How does that work?

 

[butchersapron]

Plus, it's taking time to collate these figures. Don't jump to conclusions yet folks. 600+ elections.

 

[JTG]

The fact is that they increased their seats nationally and their vote in London specifically went up. They are now probably almost equivalent to the Greens in terms of national significance.

If national government is truly concerned about them then they can give more power to local councils to allow them to actually respond to local needs on a local basis. More social housing etc. Listen to the needs of the unemployed, working poor etc rather than just complacently relying on their votes without serving any of their needs.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

If national government is truly concerned about them then they can give more power to local councils to allow them to actually respond to local needs on a local basis. More social housing etc. Listen to the needs of the unemployed, working poor etc rather than just complacently relying on their votes without serving any of their needs.

History shows that when the establishment is faced with the choice of progressive politics or a rise in fascism it tends to go with the latter.

 

[JTG]

true. Look at the US, UK & French reaction to the Spanish Civil War (not strictly relevant to today but summat I was pondering last night).

 

[butchersapron]

History shows that when the establishment is faced with the choice of progressive politics or a rise in fascism it tends to go with the latter.

a) No it doesn and b) we're not in anything like comparable postions to past historical examples of succesfull fascist takeovers. There is no choice of progressive politics or fascism being imposed on the state or govt. Such facile arguments and comparisons don't help anyone.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

a) No it doesnt.

Yes it does.

In Italy, Germany and Spain the rise of fascism was greatly aided through work with capitalists and catholics and the aristocracy.

In the modern world the media would much rather flirt with fascism than progressive forces from elsewhere on the spectrum.

The BBC give them grossly disproportionate coverage.

It is not a remotely facile point.

Where Labour have neglected the working class, the fascist vote can go up. Then Labour can put their vote up with little effort by drumming up an anti-fascist vote.

Ergo fascism suits the Labour Party in many cases. An ugly and unspoken truth, but I have seen it in action.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Butchers

"There is no choice of progressive politics or fascism being imposed on the state or govt"

No, but there is an aknowledged vacuum created by the coalescing of major parties round a corporatist agenda.

"others" in polls has shot up in recent years from 1 or 2 to often more like 10%

Knock out Plaid and SNP from that and you are largely left with Greens or BNP.

Who get more coverage out of the latter 2?

 

[butchersapron]

Yes it does.

In Italy, Germany and Spain the rise of fascism was greatly aided through work with capitalists and catholics and the aristocracy.

In the modern world the media would much rather flirt with fascism than progressive forces from elsewhere on the spectrum.

The BBC give them grossly disproportionate coverage.

It is not a remotely facile point.

Where Labour have neglected the working class, the fascist vote can go up. Then Labour can put their vote up with little effort by drumming up an anti-fascist vote.

Ergo fascism suits the Labour Party in many cases. An ugly and unspoken truth, but I have seen it in action.

We're not in the 1930s (we're not even in the 7os)The context in which those dictatorships arose are uttely different from today. To fight todays battles wuith the weapons of the past is to refuse to enage with what the current issues are - it's not to join in the battle at all frankly.

Historcially the state has reacted to challenges in a number of ways, from outright concessions (NHS etc) to monetarism to neo-liberalism. It reacted in a severely limited number of countries in a severly limted time frame by imposing (or having it imposed fascism). We are not in a situation in any way comparbakle to those examples - the state is not under severe attack, there is not near civil war in the streets, there are not private armies hundreds of thousands strong. There is no threat of fascist takeveover or collusion between the heads of the state and industry with a million strong fascist party.

You need to calm down.

 

[butchersapron]

Butchers

"There is no choice of progressive politics or fascism being imposed on the state or govt"

No, but there is an aknowledged vacuum created by the coalescing of major parties round a corporatist agenda.

"others" in polls has shot up in recent years from 1 or 2 to often more like 10%

Knock out Plaid and SNP from that and you are largely left with Greens or BNP.

Who get more coverage out of the latter 2?

So you admit that the basis for your suggestion of incipient fascism is wrong.

I know there's a vacuum, i've been talking about it for years. It doesn't mean that the state is in any way under serious challenge. It (and capital_ are more thna happy witgh the current set-up. They'd be very happy if things continued as they are.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

So you admit that the basis for your suggestion of incipient fascism is wrong.

Nope. I advanced the theory that the establishment will would sooner tacitly collude / flirt with fascism rather than left radicalism.

I have cited examples from very different contexts which nonetheless demonstrate the same dynamic.

 

[audiotech]

Edited: Already a thread on this;

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...cry-of-white-workingclass-anguish-821139.html

 

[gorski]

Depends who interprets: if it's Chomsky, for instance, than an active prevention of democracy is the name of the game, as far as the "elites" are concerned [the US, in particular]...

That comes close to getting into fascist waters, whenever a serious societal/political/economic conflict arises, sure...

 

[The Black Hand]

I know there's a vacuum, i've been talking about it for years. It doesn't mean that the state is in any way under serious challenge. It (and capital_ are more thna happy witgh the current set-up. They'd be very happy if things continued as they are.

CW were talking about it in the 1980s, certainly I remember Ian talking about it circa 1991/92. The state is not what it was though is it Butch, where stand you on state theory? We no longer have the Keynesian Welfare state, and so debate on this issue is vital.

Your particular take on state theory is virtually certain to determine your position on other issues, so it is a part of theory which is important.

Are you a disciple of Bob Jessop (post Schumpeterian workfare state theory - aarrrggghhhhhh) or what? The public (ok me) demands to know.

 

[gorski]

We no longer have the Keynesian Welfare state, and so debate on this issue is vital.

We certainly do, although:

1) it's worse than in comparable EU countries

2) under constant Neo-Lib/Neo-Con attack

3) slowly being eroded - at the mo...

 

[The Black Hand]

We certainly do, although:

1) it's worse than in comparable EU countries

2) under constant Neo-Lib/Neo-Con attack

3) slowly being eroded - at the mo...

It is no longer the welfare state - it's the Workfare state. Increasing marketisation/privatisation has already got rid of large parts of the state, and changed the criteria of welfare from universalism to 'the deserving poor', hence mandatory training and work. So we have the included (often white and employed) and the excluded (often black -generic term and poor) - we are back to the 19th century dangerous classes...

 

[Andy the Don]

It's all the outer boroughs, we should just cut them off, Havering & Redbridge is essex, croydon isn't in london.

All apart from City & East constituency, which was the the constituency with the largest proportion of Muslims. A mentioned by many the BNP has done well due to the WWC deserting labour. Which the correctly see as deserting them.

 

[gorski]

It is no longer the welfare state - it's the Workfare state. Increasing marketisation/privatisation has already got rid of large parts of the state, and changed the criteria of welfare from universalism to 'the deserving poor', hence mandatory training and work. So we have the included (often white and employed) and the excluded (often black -generic term and poor) - we are back to the 19th century dangerous classes...

Not really. Not in the UK - yet. Mandatory in some other countries, but there it is also more generous and retraining much better etc.

Not a simple thing...

 

[The Black Hand]

Not really. Not in the UK - yet. Mandatory in some other countries, but there it is also more generous and retraining much better etc.

Not a simple thing...

It is mandatory if you want to keep your benefits for not working.

 

[butchersapron]

CW were talking about it in the 1980s, certainly I remember Ian talking about it circa 1991/92. The state is not what it was though is it Butch, where stand you on state theory? We no longer have the Keynesian Welfare state, and so debate on this issue is vital.

Your particular take on state theory is virtually certain to determine your position on other issues, so it is a part of theory which is important.

Are you a disciple of Bob Jessop (post Schumpeterian workfare state theory - aarrrggghhhhhh) or what? The public (ok me) demands to know.

I've very little interest in discussing Jessop or state form, and certainly not enough to derail this thread, but i'll give a brief answer and then no more. Clarke, Holoway et all were 100% correct to criticise him for seing class struggle as being only an external pressure on state from rather than state form being class struggle, a problem common to the whole Regulation approach. I think their attacks have been proven correct by Jessops current trajectory - if you read his recent work The Future of the Capitalist State you'll see he's retreated into the worst sort of schematic top-down periodisation with class struggle almost entirely absent except in the most weak formal terms - almost as an afterthought.

The wider regulation school has tried without much succes to take on board the criticisms aimd at their approach - see Global Restructuring, State, Capital and Labour by Andreas Bieheler, Weerner Bonefeld, Peter Burnham and Adam David Morton for a very interesting contemporary debate about this at the international and national level and directly related issues.

All that said, Negri and others were already talking about this in the late 60s - Negri's Keynes and the Capitalist Theory of the State post-1929 being a particularly useful contribution.

 

[marty21]

tories have 11 seats on the assembly
labour 9 lib dems and greens 2 each
and bnp 1

i presume the assembly has to approve the boris budget, so he needs to reach out to the lib dems or the greens to get a majority - he can also, i presume, count on the bnp vote

 

[butchersapron]

tories have 11 seats on the assembly
labour 9 lib dems and greens 2 each
and bnp 1

i presume the assembly has to approve the boris budget, so he needs to reach out to the lib dems or the greens to get a majority - he can also, i presume, count on the bnp vote

Interesting question - i wouldn't be so sure they'll support him myself.

 

[marty21]

Interesting question - i wouldn't be so sure they'll support him myself.

it makes it a bit tasty - i doubt the lib dems or greens would want to be a member of a tory/bnp coalition - then again i'm not entirely sure what powers the assembly has, it sounds like a talking shop, with the mayor in control

 

[The Black Hand]

I've very little interest in discussing Jessop or state form, and certainly not enough to derail this thread, but i'll give a brief answer and then no more. Clarke, Holoway et all were 100% correct to criticise him for seing class struggle as being only an external pressure on state from rather than state form being class struggle, a problem common to the whole Regulation approach. I think their attacks have been proven correct by Jessops current trajectory - if you read his recent work The Future of the Capitalist State you'll see he's retreated into the worst sort of schematic top-down periodisation with class struggle almost entirely absent except in the most weak formal terms - almost as an afterthought.

The wider regulation school has tried without much succes to take on board the criticisms aimd at their approach - see Global Restructuring, State, Capital and Labour by Andreas Bieheler, Weerner Bonefeld, Peter Burnham and Adam David Morton for a very interesting contemporary debate about this at the international and national level and directly related issues.

All that said, Negri and others were already talking about this in the late 60s - Negri's Keynes and the Capitalist Theory of the State post-1929 being a particularly useful contribution.

Yes I know Andreas and Adam, good book that. Werner I have yet to have the pleasure of though that will arrive soon i guess. Peter Burnham I think I met about 10 years ago.

Call me an old Trot if you want (not that I have ever been one) but I am becoming interested in combined and uneven development theory

So there can be different things going on at the same time regarding the state... This is what I see going on in other areas too - eg. with fluctuating results for the fash. So I am just about to delve seriously into it