Do we believe in redemption...

****

...political redemption that is of course. Let me explain.

Bradford had two councillors who were elected as BNP - as it happens they are husband and wife and represent Queensbury ward. Almost a year ago, they announced their resignation from that party and their intention to sit as independent councillors. At that time they also said that the politics of race and religion did not serve Bradford well.

As a 'mea culpa' it was a start.

Over this weekend, these Councillors sent an e-mail out to all the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat members of council following the success of Respect candidates in the local elections. Here is a chunks of that e-mail:

"Please forgive Lynda and I if you consider this e-mail inappropriate.

As most of you will know Lynda and I were at the count on Thursday/Friday supporting our friend Conservative Cllr Michael Walls.

What we witnessed at the count made our blood run cold, the politics of division has again reared it's ugly head in Bradford..."

They were, of course, referring to the manner in which Respect had campaigned - so it went on:

"Lynda and I have to agree with Ian Greenwood's televised comment re Respect that he considered that Respect made promised they would not be able to keep.

Lynda spoke to our wonderful Lord Mayor Naveeda Ikram at a recent opening ceremony that Naveeda performed in Queensbury.

Naveeda explained to Lynda how worried she and Ian Greenwood were that Respect had brought religion into their election manifesto.

Respect targeted heavily populated Asian/Muslim areas of the City and in doing so has split the local Asian communities."

 Now I appreciate the slight irony of former BNP councillors speaking of the "politics of division" but Paul's e-mail seemed genuine - he expressed real concern at how hard-working councillors like Ian Greenwood could be swept aside by this sort of campaign (a reminder, I guess, that the BNP did this too - the current Conservative Group leader, Glen Miller lost his seat to them in 2004).

My question however, isn't whether you agree with the analysis these councillors present but whether it opens the door to the 'political mainstream' for politicians previously wholly beyond the pale.

Do we believe in redemption?

...

So my Green friends, you'll oppose police infiltration of the BNP too?

****

I listened to an 'outraged' environmentalist called Dr Chadderton on the radio today complaining about covert surveillance by the police. Apparently he - and his fellow eco-loons - are upset because somebody spied on them for a 'shadowy' police branch: The National Public Order Intelligence Group*.

Dr Chadderton's beef was that the state was infiltrating 'peaceful' organisations seeking to influence the agenda and campaign to protect the planet. Nice, innocent, unthreatening green folk who knit jumpers from lentils, dine on curried mung beans and carry out acts of vandalism on power stations.

Now I have some sympathy with Dr Chadderton's view point. However, when the BNP were complaining about undercover infiltration by public authorities and covert surveillance, I didn't hear Dr Chadderton's greenie mates complaining at the misuse of public funds investigating legitimate political organisations. Nope, they were all for it - expose those nasty fascists, they said.

Hypocrites?

*The Police are slipping - what kind of 'shadowy' body has the acronym NPOIG?

....

No Ed, private schools aren't staffed by racists...

***
Leaving aside the foaming at the mouth from various people about BNP-supporting teachers (not least the truly awful General Secretary of the NAS/UWT union), we should concern ourselves a little with the Government’s response. Indeed Ed Balls, the secretary of state has – surprise, surprise – used it as yet another excuse for an unwarranted attack on independent schools:

"Many independent schools belong to associations which have their own membership criteria. The associations provide advice and support, and their individual requirements provide a degree of self-regulation and discipline. All the available evidence suggests that these associations have high expectations of their members and have their own procedures for handling cases where problems arise.

"However, I remained concerned about Maurice Smith's observations about the independent sector and therefore I have asked him to explore further whether the current arrangements strike the right balance between allowing independent schools autonomy, operating in accordance with their ethos and values, and protecting the young people attending those schools from teachers displaying racist or intolerant views or behaviours that could be harmful."

So you see – all those public schools are staffed by tweed wearing, racists. Or worst still Tories! So we’ll have a review about “protecting the young people!!

Ed, not only are BNP supporting teachers not a problem but private schools aren’t a problem either. Maybe you should look instead at the abject failure of state schools – schools where two out of ten kids leave without the basic skills needed to get on in life.

....

BNP strongest in places with large muslim populations? Er...nope.

***

Various folk have been going on about how the BNP are strongest in Muslim areas. The very lovely Al Jahom quotes Melanie Philips saying that these racist prats are strongest...

"...in areas of high Pakistani and Bangladeshi concentration — but significantly, not where there are concentrations of Indians. Strikingly, BNP support actually falls away steeply in Afro-Caribbean areas."

The evidence for this is an old Manchester University study that (quite crucially) contains no current psephological data relying instead on an old Ipsos-MORI poll and a literature search.

All this suits the agenda of folk like Melanie Philips who want us to believe it's all about Muslims but while that is a big element the statement above is false.

1. The BNP's biggest success has been in the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham where they won 12 seats in 2007

2. Other areas where the BNP has performed well include Rotherham, North West Leicestershire, Nuneaton and Barnsley. None of these areas (perhaps with the exception of Rotherham) have large Muslim populations.

3. The BNP's first breakthroughs - in Bradford, Oldham & Burnley did reflect a response to rioting in largely Muslim areas. But since this time the BNP has declined in these areas.

We can keep sticking our fingers in our ears and singing la-la-la if we like but I take the view that simply saying; "it's muzzies innit" doesn't stack up - that is a factor but has to be set against a host of others like housing policies, unemployment, a crap Labour government and a dreadful bunch of lying MPs.

Finally the BNP will not get 5% of the popular vote come the general election and their best performances are unlikely to see them exceed 15%.

Oh and Melanie, where is Nick Griffin going to stand at the General Election? Oh yes...Barking - right bang in the old NF East London heartland.

...
Update: This link - in the comment below - is interesting (although it doesn't answer the question) in that it maps non-white population against BNP membership.

BNP: can we get a little perspective please!

To read the comments of some you would think we were in imminent danger of the BNP winning hundreds of seats across the country, of fascists sweeping to power in town halls and of assorted racists strutting their stuff on the Andrew Marr Show every Sunday morning. And all because the BBC, in its bumbling, pinko-liberal way, has decided that Nick Griffin, the BNP's rather pompous and podgy leader should appear on Question Time.

Now this decision by the BBC is pretty sound from the producers perspective - think of the publicity for a rather fading format! Following on from the "expenses" editon of the show, this will get enormous attention and will increase the show's audience. Definitely a win - and, as I've said before, the right decision.

So why all the sound and fury - from Peter Hain, Alan Johnson and other voices from the left? Why the ongoing (and self-righteous) "no platform" arguments? And why the scare stories about the prospect of the BNP winning? Perhaps - I don't know - it suits the left politically to adopt such a position? Probably, it's because they're stupid.

So here's some perspective on the BNP. Since they swept into power (getting significantly less that 10% of the vote nationally and barely 10% in Yorkshire and the North West where the damn silly electoral system we have for European elections got them two MEPs) there have been 123 local council by-elections in Great Britain spread across the whole country. And the BNP?

1. Of the 123 local by-elections the BNP have contested just 32 - fewer than UKIP (34) and fewer than the Greens (39). They did not win a single one of these contests - the Greens won three (Brighton, Scarborough and Lancaster) and UKIP won three (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Cambridgeshire).

2. The BNP got more than 10% of the vote in 19 contests, more than 20% in just 6 and more than 30% in just one (a rather odd by election in Boston following the disqualification of the new Conservative Councillor - the first in this traditional Labour ward)

3. Even in places like Ashfield, North West Leicestershire and Broxtowe where the BNP seems well organised and has won elections, the party has failed to contest seats and lost a seat it was defending in Brinsley near Nottingham

There is no place for complacency in campaigning - there remains a solid basis of support for the BNP and all the laws, court cases and stern lectures won't change this fact. But we need to challenge the BNP rather than push them back once again onto the forums, into the pubs and onto the streets. But a little perspective might not go amiss!

The stupidity of "No Platform" & the fight against the BNP

There are two ways to deal with unpleasant political organisations – one works, the other doesn’t. Which is why the decision of the BBC to invite the leader of the BNP onto Question Time is a welcome breakthough. It will expose the BNP’s policies to proper scrutiny from the public, from other politicians and from the media. Those policies will not survive such scrutiny. But while celebrating this decision by the BBC, let’s remind ourselves of the idiocy that is the alternative - the “No Platform” policy.

1. Back in the 1980s the Conservative Government – in one of its populist (aka silly) moments – decided that the way to deal with the unpleasant apologists for murderers in Northern Ireland was to ban them from the telly. The result was that Sinn Fein – and the odd goon from the loonier wings of loyalism – got onto the telly but with a (rather better spoken) actor dubbing the voice. “No Platform” didn’t work.

2. A few years earlier – while I was supposedly studying for a degree in Hull – the Students Union adopted a “No Platform” policy of such broadness that we had to smuggle in the (admittedly rather right-wing) local MP Patrick Wall. And that drawing of the definition of “fascist” meant that we could not support “No Platform” – seeking instead to undermine it at every opportunity (mostly by trying to get motions banned or by creating daft right-wing groups like the “Men’s Reaction Group”). “No Platform” didn’t work.

3. More recently, when the BNP were first elected onto Bradford Council in 2004, the Labour Party (and the few stray Greens in the chamber) created a delightful – faintly pythonesque – series of moments as they tried to exit the chamber so as not to be caught in the same room as a fascist asking a procedural question! Fortunately for the dignity of Council, the BNP are so monumentally useless that they failed to realise the chaos and confusion they could cause just by standing up to exercise their right to speak. “No Platform” didn’t work.

4. “No Platform” is just pointless posturing that gives easy publicity to the BNP without actually reducing that party’s ability to campaign. It is adopted by the mainstream Labour left as some kind of mark of righteousness and is a position even the wittier and wiser among them struggle to justify. I recall when Iain Dale interviewed the BNP deputy leader, Hopi Sen (who was sharing the polling day broadcast with Iain back in June) left the studio. Hopi just sounded silly. “No Platform” didn’t work.

The contention from the left is that “No Platform” removes legitimacy from the BNP and takes away their opportunity to spread their “poisonous message”. But it doesn't, it just gives that Party a glorious opportunity to play the martyr card

“LibLabCon are excluding us” is the cry. “They’re frightened of our message – the interests of working Britons are being betrayed by a corrupt political elite.”

The BNP get sympathy and coverage without having to do anything to explain or justify their policies.

For some on the left, typified by Unite Against Fascism (UAF), the solution doesn’t lie in debate – in the power of honest argument – but in “mobilising” and “organising”. In the main this involves various of the left’s badly dressed groupuscules clustering in corners of pubs and, when the endless internecine disputes of these groups are briefly set aside, getting sort of organised to gather outside another dingy pub where the “fascists” might be meeting. This usually means that a couple of skinheads are having a beer or six somewhere and waiting for the UAF to turn up so they can have a scrap. Rather foolishly those silly lefties oblige – creating a disturbance and taking up inordinate amounts of police time keeping order. And the UAF then gather back at their favoured haunt to share tales of the latest mobilisation – if they could agree on it they’d be giving out campaign medals (which the fascists probably do)!

The BNP love these campaigns – it motivates their activists, provides a ready source of recruits from those mistakenly targeted by the UAF (or who just like to beat up a few hippies) and allows that party to go on pretending to the skilled working class that it is a right-wing party with their interests at heart. Immigration policy aside (and that’s moot), the BNP – like all its predecessors – is a party of the authoritarian left. It shares with the tankies a penchant for autarky and with the trots a preference for confrontation, strikes and even violence as a means of prosecuting a political objective. The BNP should have had the same electoral impact as the multitudes of left-wing parties, from the WRF to Respect – almost none. But “No Platform”, “organising”, “mobilising” and confronting the fascists has changed that – it is the single biggest factor in the BNP’s limited success.

Give the BNP a platform, challenge what they say, show how their policies divide and destroy our culture. Doing this will change how people see them and will show them up for the embarrassment they are. Keep on with “No Platform” and watch their strength grow and grow. It’s a simple choice.

Sue the BNP? How stupid are the Equalities & Human Rights Commission?

The airwaves are full of the news that Trevor Philips' equalities super-quango are to sue the BNP because they only let white people join the party.

Excuse me? What are you thinking equalicrats?

As if we didn't know the BNP didn't like black people. They're racists you know! And trying to use equalities rules to shut them down is pouring high octane racing fuel on a fire - bloody stupid.

Using the courts to "beat the fascists" is using their methods - so what if they only want white members. So what if they break the assorted equalities laws with every breath.

We'll only defeat them by persuading the voters that they are idiots - and we don't do that by being total idiots ourselves now do we?