Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

BNP: What will we do next?

FreddyB said:
A searchlight guy was on radio 4 last night (didn't catch a name) and his position was essentially the mainstream can't adopt anti immigration policies because that would mean the BNP had won.
Click to expand...
Didn't stop the Thatcher Conservative party in 1979, and probably won't stop either Labour or the Conservative party this time around. If there's votes to be had they'll do it.
If the lines remain drawn like that then the BNP are certainly here to stay.
Click to expand...
They're here to stay anyway. There'll always be malcontents.
It's a class issue. Immigration damages the working class, drives down wages, more casual conditons etc. Improves profit. People may not put it in those terms but they know it all the same.
Click to expand...
Most of them also know that it isn't quite that simple. That, for example, some of the jobs immigrants supposedly "steal" are ones "indigenous Britons" see as being beneath them, that if the bosses weren't screwing immigrants they'd be screwing "the natives" in exactly the same way.
It's also eminently arguable that immigration enhances the working class.
 
So do those who think the correct response is to take a tougher line of immigration support New Labour and Tory immigration policies or do they not go far enough?
 
ViolentPanda said:
Didn't stop the Thatcher Conservative party in 1979, and probably won't stop either Labour or the Conservative party this time around. If there's votes to be had they'll do it.

They're here to stay anyway. There'll always be malcontents.
Click to expand...

Here to stay as in electorally significant, successful. The NF were under cut by Thatcher and have been easily ignored ever since.

ViolentPanda said:
Most of them also know that it isn't quite that simple. That, for example, some of the jobs immigrants supposedly "steal" are ones "indigenous Britons" see as being beneath them, that if the bosses weren't screwing immigrants they'd be screwing "the natives" in exactly the same way.
It's also eminently arguable that immigration enhances the working class.
Click to expand...

Immigrants don't steal any jobs. They compete in the jobs market perfectly legitimately. Making them the enemy is no way to frame the debate.
 
That, for example, some of the jobs immigrants supposedly "steal" are ones "indigenous Britons" see as being beneath them
Click to expand...

Surprised at you VP, with that line, who used to do those jobs , what happened?

oh, and the left and churches and unions have also conflated economic migrants with asylum seekers, refugees, etc
 
To my mind, we allow them to set the agenda by not doing things like anti-ballifs actions, anti-debt actions (i mean domestic debt not goblal or state debt), loan sharks, interventionist advice type stuff, closure of local services - schools, hospitals etc, sub-standard council upkeep of council housing, crap bus services, supermarket monopolies, mobile phone masts etc -yeah, all the stuff that's lumped together under 'community work' time after time ( i know, i know - and none of which means not looking at wider stuff too), we need to make that part of politics rather than allowing them to sell politics as just immigration. And of course, by doing so we not only crowd out the idea that immigration is the only content of politics we logically end up questioning via our victories, and not as individuals, the standard immigration narrative that the state and capital try to palm off on us, we are logically led to asking why certain communities have less resources than others, are lower down the list of priorities, have worse conditions and so on. I'm aware that i'm saying nothing new or earth shattering here or that most people don't already know, but sometimes it's worth saying again.
 
'This is not just a broadside against easy targets, however, but an attempt to highlight examples of where the Left has been effective in organising and how these efforts have been stifled and why. He contrasts the creative and effective developments initiated by grassroots working class members with the centralising tendencies of party leaderships, which too often moved to shut down activities that were not within their control. He first cites the Socialist Labour League (SLL) which, working through the Labour Party, organised social events for working class youngsters, a strategy initiated by young SLL members in Wigan that apparently met with some success:'


Some good stuff on Left Luggage, inc on the Socialist Labour League and their community activity in the 60's, etc.
 
'What’s remarkable about this survey is the size of the sample: close to 200,000 people were interviewed by polling company Ipsos Mori. So it can be considered fairly reflective of attitudes among the British population. Apparently the study showed widespread support for many British National Party policies among the population, including “the re-imposition of the death penalty, a total halt to migration and large expansions in police powers.” However, the study found that the BNP suffers from an “image problem” insofar as when many people learn of a connection to the party, they immediately become more hostile to a policy. One of the researchers, Dr Rob Ford said:

The data shows that many Britons are in favour of the sort of draconian measures regularly proposed by the BNP, such as a complete halt to migration, the denial of benefits to migrants and even repatriation of settled migrants. It suggests the BNP could appeal to an electorate far larger than it currently wins over – perhaps as many as 15-20 per cent of voters. [...]

Most British voters hold very negative views about the BNP, and one recent survey suggested that British voters become more reluctant to endorse a policy when they become aware of a BNP connection.'

from LL
http://theleftluggage.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/political-field-wide-open-to-challengers/



This is concerning and it is something i have suspected for a while: support for the BNP policies goes deeper than its electoral support
 
FreddyB said:
Here to stay as in electorally significant, successful. The NF were under cut by Thatcher and have been easily ignored ever since.
Click to expand...
That's my point.
If the major parties believe that there's political capital to be made from a rightward shift, then they'll make a rightward shift, regardless of whether that shows the BNP to have been "right" or not.
Immigrants don't steal any jobs. They compete in the jobs market perfectly legitimately. Making them the enemy is no way to frame the debate.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm fully aware of that. Perhaps you might try reading my reply a little more thoroughly?
 
treelover said:
Surprised at you VP, with that line, who used to do those jobs , what happened?
Click to expand...
Social mobility happened. It's hardly a radical idea that as people feel that they're moving up some social scale they come to believe that they're "too good" to do certain jobs.
oh, and the left and churches and unions have also conflated economic migrants with asylum seekers, refugees, etc
Click to expand...
Then they're fucking idiots.
 
I have spoke to harden fascist members/candidates of the BNP, and ordinary members and supporters. [one who was an Englishman who went to fight in South Africa, and a candidate for the BNP] And I believe it is tactically inept not to draw a distinction between the two. A large degree of the membership, and a massive degree of their supporters, ARE opposed to fascism. However, trying to convince their soft supporters, the hard core ARE still fascist is not easy. In my experience, it's a bit like trying to convince a 911 conspiracy theory nut. But some do recognise it, recognise that this hardcore are costing them electorally, and would like to get rid of them. You then have to make the point, that the 'democratic' structures of the BNP, have been stitched up to make it almost impossible to get rid of Griffin.

Conclusion: in my opinion the target should always be Griffin. Always talk about fascism of Griffin and the hard core, not necessarily the BNP. But then also realise, that the anti fascist audience may not necessarily be the BNP members. They are so desperate it is almost impossible to win them with logical discussion. The audience for the anti fascist, should be to mobilise the massive anti fascist majority. This has been a problem so far with the anti fascist campaign, in my opinion. It has been far to top down. When they have a meeting of 200, we need a demonstration of 1000 locals. It is OK you using the money and organisation of the trade unions etc., If this is used to promote grassroots activity. We will not be able to convince people grassroots activity, unless we convince people they are fascist. We will not convince them they are fascist, unless we point to the real fascist, which is the hard core. However, I do think recent events may make the mobilisation of ordinary people more easy.

The success of the Griffin has been based upon 1. He has united the fascist right, with the soft right. 2. He organises and directs the fascist and a soft right supporters, to UNITED actions which will maximize impact. 3. He understands this united action is a process, that can propel its members rightwards, towards fascism, and his endgame of apartheid.

The success of the anti fascist campaign would be based upon: 1. It has to unite the hard left, with the soft left. 2. And he has to unite the trade unions etc. with the grassroots, putting the top in the service of the grassroots. 3. It has to organise and direct the hard leftist and a soft left supporters, to UNITED actions which will maximize impact, but also develop enough mass so local groups are big enough to act autonomously when necessary, and in support of other local groups where necessary. 4. It needs to understand this united action is a process, that can propel its members leftwards, tonthe endgame of getting rid of the causes of fascism.

In my opinion, only a the movement that can get rid of the causes of fascism the can act as a true of poll of attraction to BNP members/supporters'.
 
butchersapron said:
What would a rightward shift by the main parties look like today?
Click to expand...

Not much different from now in form, but with policies regarding labour, immigration, welfare etc that would be even more exclusionary and repressive than those currently in practice. I suspect that the "aid" part of the foreign policy equation would also become a lesser concern than it is now, except insofar as aid could be "tied" to trade.
 
@RMP3

well. one of the 'causes of fascism' is 'mass migration', however uncomfortable people are with that, but many AF support NB , how will they square that circle, i don't think they can.
 
treelover said:
@RMP3

well. one of the 'causes of fascism' is 'mass migration', however uncomfortable people are with that, but many AF support NB , how will they square that circle, i don't think they can.
Click to expand...
which you will not change until you change the causes of mass migration?
 
butchersapron said:
To my mind, we allow them to set the agenda by not doing things like anti-ballifs actions, anti-debt actions (i mean domestic debt not goblal or state debt), loan sharks, interventionist advice type stuff, closure of local services - schools, hospitals etc, sub-standard council upkeep of council housing, crap bus services, supermarket monopolies, mobile phone masts etc -yeah, all the stuff that's lumped together under 'community work' time after time ( i know, i know - and none of which means not looking at wider stuff too)...
Click to expand...
Something I've noticed from doing "local" stuff over the last 30 years is the way that many w/c people shy away from politicising what's traditionally seen as community action. I think this is probably part reticence, part political disenchantment and part concern that some political "element" or other will try to "take over" and make your community action a political tool for their own use.
...we need to make that part of politics rather than allowing them to sell politics as just immigration. And of course, by doing so we not only crowd out the idea that immigration is the only content of politics we logically end up questioning via our victories, and not as individuals, the standard immigration narrative that the state and capital try to palm off on us, we are logically led to asking why certain communities have less resources than others, are lower down the list of priorities, have worse conditions and so on. I'm aware that i'm saying nothing new or earth shattering here or that most people don't already know, but sometimes it's worth saying again.
Click to expand...
The problem being that even for many politically-active people, the narratives you mention are what they define their responses against. We need to engage people with the idea that action can be FOR stuff, not just against, and hope that community action can create a climate where "local politics" become a mechanism for self and community improvement, rather than a cuss.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Yes, I'm fully aware of that. Perhaps you might try reading my reply a little more thoroughly?
Click to expand...

I don't buy into the rest of it - no one applying to do the job you advertise, pay more.

ViolentPanda said:
That's my point.
If the major parties believe that there's political capital to be made from a rightward shift, then they'll make a rightward shift, regardless of whether that shows the BNP to have been "right" or not.
Click to expand...

If they do then they do. If that deals with the BNP then it does.

Regardless of a rising BNP or not

butchersapron said:
To my mind, we allow them to set the agenda by not doing things like anti-ballifs actions, anti-debt actions (i mean domestic debt not goblal or state debt), loan sharks, interventionist advice type stuff, closure of local services - schools, hospitals etc, sub-standard council upkeep of council housing, crap bus services, supermarket monopolies, mobile phone masts etc -yeah, all the stuff that's lumped together under 'community work' time after time ( i know, i know - and none of which means not looking at wider stuff too), we need to make that part of politics rather than allowing them to sell politics as just immigration. And of course, by doing so we not only crowd out the idea that immigration is the only content of politics we logically end up questioning via our victories, and not as individuals, the standard immigration narrative that the state and capital try to palm off on us, we are logically led to asking why certain communities have less resources than others, are lower down the list of priorities, have worse conditions and so on. I'm aware that i'm saying nothing new or earth shattering here or that most people don't already know, but sometimes it's worth saying again.
Click to expand...

Looks like the best way forward for w/c people.
 
JHE said:
The BNP has been able to gain some support, despite its unsavoury reputation, the weird and off-putting political background of some of its leading members and the hostility of the media. Why? Essentially, it's because a vote for the BNP is a vote against mass immigration and the main parties are seen as being in favour of mass immigration.
Click to expand...
But the trouble is that nobody is in favour of "mass immigration" - indeed, it'd be the purest lunacy for anyone to be so, far less admit to it. This whole "mass immigration" business is a folk devil invented by parties - like the BNP - with an axe to grind. Unfortunately, they are capitalising on a depressing reality: the truth is often not effective in countering a lie. And this is a lie, no doubt about it.

JHE said:
There is a way of stopping the BNPers in their tracks. It's simple: Shoot their fox!

If the main parties agreed to hold a referendum or series of referendums on the question of immigration, and promised to abide by the outcome of the referendum, people would have no reason to vote for the BNP. They could just vote for whichever one of the other parties they find best, least disgusting or most trustworthy.
Click to expand...
The trouble is that such a referendum makes us hostages to fortune. In the terms in which a referendum question is bound to be couched, I think it'd be inevitable that people's more racist side would tend to come into play, and you'd end up with a vote much more in favour of anti-immigrant policies than would actually be the case - it'd be like that kind of little old lady inveighing against "all them darkies, coming over here and taking our jobs...oh, no, not Mr Patel at the newsagent's, he's nice and he always makes sure they've got my Knitters World in, and that nice Jamaican bus conductor, but all the rest..." - in other words, "all those immigrants I don't know can bugger off back home"

The other problem is that a referendum like this wouldn't shoot the BNP's fox so much as give them the biggest gold-plated ueber-fox they could ever wish for - what, a vote where they don't have to worry about any of that boring policy stuff other than "kick out the darkies!"? They'll be lapping it up. We'd have taken the battle right to their strongest place - the place where they are able to appeal to the latent xenophobe in all of us, but where they're free from awkward questions about the other trivial details.

No, if we're going to shoot the BNP's fox, I think the way to do it is to - rigorously - ensure that they are treated as, and held to the same standards of, regular political parties. Stop shouting them down when they want to start sharing the platform with non-racist political parties and let them hang themselves with the rope we give them. At the moment, the BNP's other fox is the victim card, which they play relentlessly, whether it's about "unprecedented" hack attacks on their grubby website, or complaining about how their freedom of speech is being denied. Not only that, but they can legitimately claim that we must be frightened of their greater truths if we're always so ready to shut them up - let them tell their "truth", and then they can be shown up for the empty rhetoric it is.

I'm not saying give them a free hand. They need to be slapped down every time they step over the line, publicly and clearly. We have laws on race relations in this country, and the BNP should not be prevented from breaking them...but they need to be punished and called to account quickly every time they do break them.

The BNP are poison. The worst thing to do with poison is let it fester in dark corners. Let them stand up against the opposition, and then people will realise just what a hollow sham they are for a bunch of boot boys who just like hating people, and have no credibility as a political party whatsoever.
 
But the trouble is that nobody is in favour of "mass immigration" - indeed, it'd be the purest lunacy for anyone to be so, far less admit to it. This whole "mass immigration" business is a folk devil invented by parties - like the BNP - with an axe to grind. Unfortunately, they are capitalising on a depressing reality: the truth is often not effective in countering a lie. And this is a lie, no doubt about it.
Click to expand...



Er, go on blogs like Socialist Unity, i think you will find much of the far left endorse it
 
treelover said:
Er, go on blogs like Socialist Unity, i think you will find much of the far left endorse it
Click to expand...
I doubt that very much. And in any case, if it's just extreme far left parties endorsing it, then it's hardly the "clear and present danger" that the propaganda of the BNP and other racist groups try to paint it as being.

glenquagmire said:
Nobody on Socialist Unity has endorsed "mass immigration". Open borders is not the same as mass immigration.
Click to expand...

Quite. A perfect example of two terms which groups with an axe to grind are happy to muddy the distinction between.
 
treelover said:
Yes it is, if not what is is then?

anyway, a very good article here, Paul Kingsnorth also writes some good stuff on the issue as well

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/48568...ht-bnp-in-the-european-elections?DCMP=NLC-dai
Click to expand...

pauls blog analysis, completely misses the point I'd tried to make impose 43.
In Britain, the BNP gained votes not from the Conservatives, whose share of the vote was virtually unchanged from five years ago, but from Labour. In the Labour stronghold of Barnsley, for instance, the BNP won as much as 16 per cent.
Click to expand...
not all analysis of their voting trends would agree with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aaronf
  • Poll Poll
What people/politicians do you think about and/or dislike the most?
2 3
Replies
85
Views
2K
Aaronf
Aaronf
platinumsage
Civil service interns must be working class from next year
2
Replies
58
Views
1K
GarveyLives
G
Cloo
What is the best way to combat a populist right victory in next GE?
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
4K
LDC
LDC
MSW
Nigel Farage - The next Prime Minister of the UK???
Replies
6
Views
467
JonTon
J
weltweit
Sarah Mullally next Archbishop of Canterbury - her time is up! :)
2
Replies
46
Views
1K
tim
tim
Back
Top Bottom