Category: BNP

Barnbrook shouldn’t have been suspended

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The fearmongering, lying, racist Richard Barnbrook should not be suspended from Barking & Dagenham council.

As Adam ‘Tory Troll’ Bienkov reports, the decision was handed down by a joint standards committee between the GLA and B&D council. Barnbrook put up a mendacious video saying there had been three stabbings in three weeks in LB Barking & Dagenham when there hadn’t and didn’t take the video down when its falsehood was pointed out to him by the police.

Barnbrook and the BNP try to capitalise on knife crime by making facts up and creating London’s Mothers Against Knives – a BNP front group that just coincidentally had a logo very similar to the actual Mothers Against Knives.

Otherwise, the remedial measures I think are rather appropriate. From the GLA, they are formal censure; a requirement to apologise on the GLA website and on his personal blog; to undergo training on ethics and standards in public life. From B&D, they are suspension for one calendar month without pay; requirement to apologise; failure to apologise leading to indefinite suspension. I’m sure that the press and blogs will cover it. The Evening Standard will, with a bit of luck, splash it on its posters.

I simply that is wrong in principle for anyone to be able to cashier an elected representative other than the electorate. Moreover, it makes it far too easy for aspersions to be cast on spurious grounds – and yes, I am thinking back to Ken’s mayoralty here. If an elected representative has to be removed, let there be a recall election, not a second-guessing of democracy.

xD.

The BNP Language and Concepts Discipline Manual goes down the memory hole

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I wrote here, in passing, about the BNP’s Language and Concepts Discipline Manual which included

Rule #15. BNP activists and writers should never refer to ‘black Britons’ or ‘Asian Britons’ etc, for the simple reason that such persons do not exist. These people are ‘black residents’ of the UK etc, and are no more British than an Englishman living in Hong Kong is Chinese. Collectively, foreign residents of other races should be referred to as ‘racial foreigners’, a non-pejorative term that makes clear the distinction needing to be drawn. The key in such matters is above all to maintain necessary distinctions while avoiding provocation and insult.

and

it is best to simply never speak or write of Jews at all [emphasis in original]

It would appear that this document was changed on or about April 27th 2009 to remove these and other sections. The new version is here and Wikileaks still has a copy of the original at http://www.wikileaks.com/leak/bnp-language-discipline-2005.pdf.

xD.

The BNP’s epic fail

Posted on by David Landon Cole

I’m not going to go over it in fine detail, although I recommend the posts and comments at Pickled Politics, Liberal Conspiracy and these two at the Wardman Wire. The second one deals with legal implications for blogs; look, listen and take heed. I commented on the subject at PP, and it pretty much sums up my opinions on ‘knuckledraggergate’:

OK, we don’t like the BNP. They are pernicious. I still think it’s wrong to publish the list. It should be possible to be a member of an organisation without having that advertised to the world. If nothing else, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Firstly, there should be an assumption of privacy of data unless there is compelling reason to the contrary; why should my membership of the RSPB be published?

Secondly, if the proof of concept of damaging an organisation by releasing its internal details to a waiting media and internet is shown, more people will want to do it. Leaking my membership of the RSPB is unlikely to be a problem, it’s not hard to see how an association with a trades union or the ANL could cause problems for some people if published.

Thirdly, this has damaged the BNP, which is a good thing. We can retain the moral high ground; there is no need – even if it is interesting – to rub their noses in it.

There’s more on the story courtesy of the BBC; it originally came from Lancaster UAF.

Normal blogging service will resume shortly.

xD.

PS Truly, an epic fail.

The BNP, Hizb ut-Tahrir and no-platform

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Sunny Hundal asks a couple of interesting questions over at Pickled Politics; should a no-platform policy with regards to the BNP be continued and should that it be extended to groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir?

By way of a background, I understand a no-platform policy (in the instance of the BNP) to mean that no-one from an organisation with that policy would share a speaking platform of any description with a representative of the BNP and that the BNP should not be invited to speak at said organisation. I don’t consider this to impinge on freedom of speech. Firstly, there is no obligation, for the most part, on anyone holding an event to invite people of all political persuasions. Secondly, there are no restrictions placed as a result of the policy on the BNP’s ability to inform others and on others to inform themselves about the BNP as there is plenty of information out there, not least on their website; nor does it prevent their arguments being dealt with as it is not necessary for someone to be present to be able to take on board their argument.

The point of the no-platform policy is to prevent a serially mendacious party from being able to claim any form of recognition or acceptance from civil society because they will twist ‘appearing on platform x’ into an endorsement of their existence and precisely because they crave that acceptance. The evidence for that is the dropping of the boot-boy image for suits and the attempt to cover up their racist and violent tendencies for the image of a legitimate political party.

Sunny asserts that the ‘BNP has been successfully de-legitimised’. I’m afraid that this is not universally true; in parts of East London, they are very much legitimate to some parts of the community. It is true that there was not much of an increase in the vote for the BNP but it put them above the five per cent threshold to give them an Assembly seat; we cannot deny and must not ignore the benefits that the BNP will seeks to extract from this position. There are many things that can be done and, in fairness, are being done. However, abandoning a policy of delegitimisation just as the BNP achieve an electoral success would simply allow them to say that their ‘growth’ means that the mainstream parties now see them as a legitimate part of the political sphere.

A good reminder of the illegitimacy of the BNP comes from the Tory Troll, who reports that an internal challenge to the leadership of Nick Griffin has been met by that organisation’s elections officer, one Eddy Butler, telling members not to sign any nomination papers and for ‘zero publicity’ to be given to the challenger.

Hizb ut-Tahrir are a different kettle of fish altogether. Yes, they are unpleasant and, yes, they have traits in common with the BNP but it would be wrong to see Hizb ut-Tahrir as simply an Islamic version of the BNP. For one thing, they are in different situations and they have different political ends; that alone is grounds to consider different tactics for opposing these groups differently.

The BNP, as I see it, wish to appeal to all whites. Their tactics are dependent upon a broad appeal and, because of the level of their support, they cannot nurture individuals. Their aim is to represent what they would consider the ‘true’ inhabitants of the UK; a broad take-up of the no-platform policy makes it harder for them to claim that representation as the mainstream not only disagree with them but see them as beyond the pale. That might sound a little counter-intuitive, but they are not just going after the alienated but after people who feel they are abandoned by the major parties; the difference there is important.

Hizb ut-Tahrir are not targeting all Muslims; rather, they are going after Muslims they might consider susceptible to their influence. They seek to capitalise on alienation and would be able to capitalise on the exalted position of difference if no-platform were broadly implemented towards them; for those who might feel removed from the British polis (to the extent that it exists), this would highlight Hizb ut-Tahrir as a standard around which to rally.

I would echo a point made by Sunny:

“The other problem is that most of the people who choose to take on HuT don’t know much about them, which provides them an opportunity to play the victim card and pretend they’re just lovely people.”

“[T]he truth will set you free” (John 8:321) or knowledge is power2; whichever way you prefer it, providing honest information and background to both these groups is a decent part of defeating them. The question of no-platform is essentially a question of the best way of delivering the message and countering the threats they pose in a manner which at least does nothing to strengthen their position and at best weakens it. Given that, as I have said, I have no philosophical objection to no-platform, it becomes a tactical issue. Going back to the original questions, I would say that we should continue the no-platform policy against the BNP but that we should not extend it to Hizb ut-Tahrir at this juncture.

xD.

1 – Disclaimer – the truth will set you free, but you might not like it.

2 – And, given that I’m quoting a lot and that both the BNP and Hizb ut-Tahrir have their own variations on truth, ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant’.

Reflections on the London elections

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Mayor Johnson

The headline news is, of course, the victory of Boris Johnson. It is no secret (at least if you’ve been reading this blog!) that I was and remain a strong supporter of Ken Livingstone and that I have very grave doubts about the Johnson mayoralty. I have tried to draw a comparison between relations between the GLA and the boroughs on transport and on housing. On housing, there is no doubt that some boroughs – particularly Tory boroughs, and particularly Wandsworth (11%) and Westminster (10%) – are doing very little in terms of affordable housing. The figures in brackets refer to the amount of newly-built affordable housing as a fraction of total new build in the boroughs; the requirement is for fifty per cent. Despite the protestations of ‘New Boris’, many Conservatives in the capital will resent interference and instructions from on high and simply do not see affordable housing as a priority. I believe the same problems will occur when it comes to the Freedom Pass and other aspects of transport, such as bus routing. Without co-ordination and, indeed, compulsion from the centre, the boroughs will do what they perceive as best for their patch, rather than what is best for the totality of London. It represents a step back from strategic governance of London.

Staying with transport, Johnson has a pretty good starting point: the Bill authorising Crossrail is working its way through Parliament; London Overground has come on-stream and work to improve it is taking place; the East London line is being extended and plugged into London Overground. There are many challenges, not least of which is Crossrail. Johnson will, likely as not, try to make good on his pledge to scrap or, at least, redeploy the bendy buses in London. This, combined with his rather creaky mathematics on a new Routemaster, could end up in a lot of money being spent in rather inefficient and unproductive ways. If we take as a single example the 507 route that connects Waterloo and Victoria stations, we see the advantages of the bendy buses for some routes; few people are travelling without paying as most have travelcards and the ease and speed of ingress and egress is important on a route that is carrying full busloads of commuters at peak times. I understand that Mr Johnson wants to develop river services. While it sounds like a nice idea, the tidal nature of the Thames means that times will never be the same from day to day. At best, it will remain a minor part of London’s transport mix.

My concern is that much of the good work of the last eight years will be either lost or not used to best effect. Livingstone had a vision for London and a vision for London’s transport that encompassed a variety of modes, saw cycling and walking as part of the mix, and put being able to move about, even if you’re poor, as a high priority. For this reason we saw, for instance, London Overground to facilitate circular (day-to-day living) rather than just radial (in-and-out journeys for work in the centre) journeys and the driving through of the Tube to one of the poorest boroughs, Hackney, that did not have a tube station to call its own. Equally, the ambitious plans for further trams and the Greenwich Riverside Transit bus scheme and the like must lie under a cloud.

There is a particularly dark cloud over the Freedom Pass. Shortly before the election, Mr Johnson announced Brian Cooke, chair of London Travelwatch, as one of his supporters. I wrote about it at some length here, but with an advisor who has panned the Freedom Pass and a light-touch attitude towards making the boroughs fund the Pass, I am doubtful that it will be extended in any meaningful way and concerned for its future as a whole.

Beyond that, I fear that the environment and congestion will worsen in London as Johnson is at best lukewarm about the c-charge and opposed outright to the £25 charge for the most polluting cars. I also remain concerned at the effect of Boris shooting his mouth off at the wrong time.

Lib Dems

The Liberal Democrats fell apart. Brian Paddick was not the man to lead them to a bright new dawn in London. It would appear that Boris Johnson’s victory is due to Lib Dems and UKIPpers supporting Johnson, with their shares of the mayoral vote dropping 5.2 and 5.1% respectively with the Tories’ rising by 14.3%. To be honest, there’s not much more to say than that a resurgent Tory party can take votes from Lib Dems and some former ‘dissatisfied Tories’, which bodes not well for Labour in the next general election.

The Lib Dems on the Assembly now hold the balance of power. There are eleven Tories; the eight Labour AMs and two Green AMs mean that, no matter which way the BNP go, the Lib Dems must choose between red and blue. It will be interesting to see which way they generally go and whether they articulate a coherent vision for London.

The Greens

I make no secret of my positive disposition towards the Green party. I think they will be disappointed not to have achieved another seat, but given that all the traffic was towards Johnson and Labour was going hell for leather to make sure that everyone who might vote Labour did vote Labour. As my friend Aled, who ran for the Greens, says in the comments

“Despite the major party Labour-Tory ’squeeze’ which crushed the Lib Dems, we held onto our 3 seats and weren’t that far off 3. Our vote stayed pretty much the same as last time and our constituency votes rose in most places, meaning we saved all deposits except one.

We were also a clear fourth in Mayoral 1st Preferences and came 3rd on 2nd Preferences (however meaningless that is!).”

The BNP

The BNP have a seat on the assembly. Across the capital, 5.33% of voters chose to vote for them. It behoves all of us to watch Richard Barnbrook like a hawk. The only good thing is that the BNP’s share of the vote barely rose, by one-fifth of one per cent, and that they were unable to win a constituency member even in City & East. There, they did poll 9.62%, which is still pretty worrying.

I am not sure what long-term effects the BNP’s victory will have. It is their first win off a local council, but they had been hoping for two seats. They will seek to capitalise on the publicity and the salary and expenses will be useful; however, their previous elected officials have been woefully inadequate, frequently not turned up to meetings and attracted allegations of sleaze pretty quickly. It will hopefully galvanise people to work against the BNP in east London, much as happened in the West Midlands. In the short term, I am very concerned about what will happen; it is all to easy to see an increase in racially-motivated violence, as happened in Tower Hamlets when the BNP gained a councillor.

The Left

The left don’t matter in London. Despite being able to cast a second preference for Ken, only 16,976 gave their first preferences to Lindsey German and the Left List for the mayoralty. By way of comparison, their 0.68% share of first preferences is less than the 0.91% for UKIP, 1.60% for the Christian Choice and represents slightly less than a quarter of the 2.84% who voted for Richard Barnbrook of the BNP.

There is scarcely more comfort for the left on the Assembly. Respect (George Galloway) only ran in one constituency, City & East, and came third behind the Conservatives. The Left List (the SWP part of Respect) did best in the Enfield & Haringey constituency, where they won 3.5% of the vote.

I would go so far as to say that the only thing achieved by the left parties was to stop the BNP getting a second seat on the Assembly.

One London

UKIP/Veritas/One London have disappeared; I cannot say I am particularly surprised or disappointed. Damian Hockney and Peter Hulme Cross were non-entities on the Assembly. Hockney stood down from the mayoral election after protesting that media attention was all on the large parties; given that Sian Berry received quite a lot of coverage and Lindsay German a fair amount, I think the charge doesn’t stand up. Given that Hockney and Hulme Cross stood as UKIP, ditched them for Veritas and then became One London when Kilroy-Silk’s party fell apart, I’d say that it was pretty obvious that they were going to be kicked off the Assembly.

Labour

It’s bad. Of that, there can be no doubt. It’s not quite time to write Labour off for the next election; not yet, anyway. For many people, myself included, this is the first, major setback at elections in our adult life; I was not old enough to vote in 1997 and a period without the executive of London may prove a salutatory experience.

Labour did, in fact, gain one seat on the Assembly and the vote for Ken was slightly up, by seven-tenths of a percent, on last time round. There is still a viable, progressive coalition in London but against a strong opposition, it is not enough on its own unless every ‘core’ Labour supporter turns out to vote. I suspect that the current state of the national party did not help, but the performance of Ken and the London Labour party against a rubbish overall picture was remarkable.

Three final points

The Evening Standard was cheerleading for Johnson and against Livingstone for some time. I may return to this in future, but the unique position of the paper as the only paid-for, London-wide newspaper (if London Lite and thelondonpaper can even be considered newspapers) gives it a powerful position. I am well aware that it is a private newspaper, but the effect is similar to the BBC campaigning for the Tories. It may be time to launch the Morning Courier.

The London Assembly has been a bit anonymous. This is a subject I will definitely return to as individual AMs and the Assembly as a whole need to be more visible.

Beyond London, the lessons are fewer as the demographics of the capital are very different to the rest of the country. The main issues is that voters are leaving the Lib Dems for the Tories and that, at least when there is no European election, UKIP voters are joining them. I don’t know whether this will impact on the timing of the general election.

xD.

The Oxford Union, a Racist and a Holocaust Denier

Posted on by David Landon Cole

The Oxford Union is a private debating society; only members can attend its proceedings. Its appeal for speakers is in being able to influence some of the top minds in the UK and the world and, of course, being recognised as worthy of such an opportunity. It does not matter a hoot whether people outside the intelligentsia have heard of it, particularly as it is frequently confused with OUSU, the Students’ Union, and that its finances are secure thanks to the formation of the Oxford Literary and Debating Union Trust.

The invitation to Nick Griffin and David Irving were not ever about free speech; they were about raising publicity for the current administration of the society. There was no facility for Messrs Griffin and Irving’s comments to be disseminated; consideration was not given to those who would speak against this pair of pukes – viz. an email from Luke Tryl of October 15th – beforehand.

Equally, Griffin and Irving are the worst people to choose to argue for freedom of speech; not because of their repulsive politics, but because they are too easily open to arguments against the person rather than the arguments they propose. Furthermore, they well know that few people at the Oxford Union will give two hoots for anything that a thug of a politician and a poor historian will say; however, the boon to the BNP and its fellow travellers will, I think, be substantial. If the Oxford Union wanted to have an informative debate for its members on freedom of speech, I would have thought that John Gray, Inayat Bunglawala and Ayaan Hirsi Ali would have been better speakers; controversy for its own sake is a poor substitute for radical thought and honest learning.

I said at the beginning of this post that the invitation was about publicity, not free speech. Perhaps that is unfair, and I should attribute it to incompetence rather than malice. Either way, I hope that Mr Tryl, who appears to have a nascent political career, takes a step back to consider the effects that the actions he and his associates have undertaken will have. The message that will be taken away from this is that a bad politician and a bad historian are people who are worth listening to.

Oxford Councillor Antonia Bance has one take on it; Skuds has a rather different one.

xD.

The BNP

Posted on by David Landon Cole

Matt Sinclair echoes Norman Tebbit in saying that the BNP don’t fit on the right and by extension must be of the left.

Giving definitions such as ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ are not in and of themselves good, but only by the extent of the usefullness.

Is it useful to describe the BNP as right-wing?

I would say that people of the right are generally more attached to nationalist ideas. The left would emphasise class distinctions in its place. The main right-wing party in the UK is officially the Conservative and Unionist Party. While that is entirely probably a historical nomenclature, it is not unreasonable to say that the Conservatives are the more patriotic and more nationalist party. From Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ to Smethwick, the Conservatives have had the problem of nationalism extending to racism. If that is too far back in time, it might be worth pointing out that Lord Taylor suffered from racist campaigning against him when seeking a parliamentary nomination. One one issue-axis that is the most important to the BNP, it is fair to say that the right, as it manifests itself today, is closer to the BNP than the left. That doesn’t mean they are close to them; it means they are less far away than others. I think that’s why people say that the BNP are far-right.

That having been said, the right is generally in favour of lower taxes, less state intervention and so on. That can certainly not be said of the BNP. In short, describing them as right-wing isn’t useful; extending the positions that the right take to an extreme doesn’t effectively describe the BNP.

Is it useful to describe the BNP as left-wing?

They are more statist than the espoused ideals of the right. I do, however, question that anti-statism of the right. Certainly, there is an ideology (which I am not immune to), but the tendency to want to grow the armed forces and the police – the most coercive elements of the state – suggests that there are statist tendencies, at least among certain parts of the right. Equally, there are traditionalist points of view on the right (and I would add that the BNP are very keen on certain traditions).

Economically, they do have more in common with the left; a greater role for the state and so on. I think the question is why they favour it. I would venture that the BNP are in favour of nationalisation as a secondary means because they see potential support amongst former Labour supporters who want nationalisation. For instance, the BNP favour abolishing all taxes for farmers – a right wing position? – but I would suggest that this is either because they see farmers, in a Francoist manner, as essential to the nation, both economically and because they prefer the rural life or because they see support starting to grow in rural areas and are playing a populist card.

I’m in favour of nationalisation of certain industries because I believe that they are necessary to provide a certain minimum standard of living so that people can exercise their liberty as they see fit. I would venture that the BNP aim to create (what they consider) a perfect society and see nationalisation as a means of doing that. The Soviets sought to eliminate the private sphere; I think this is more manipulating the private sphere so people agree with you anyway. That having been said, the BNP are more in favour of people having more, smaller (farming) properties and explicitly say they are against expropriation. Taking left-wing policies to extremes does not effectively describe the BNP.

Extreme left wing and extreme right wing are, I think, terms that are more useful because of the word ‘extreme’ rather than the words ‘left’ and ‘right’. To say they are extreme-right brings allegations that all right-wingers are racists and that they are extreme-left that all left-wingers want to control society.

In Denmark, there is a party simply called Venstre, meaning Left. They would be called rightwingers, espousing free market liberalism. They are known as the left because the Danish parliament was originally split between small landowners and large landownders; the former sat on the left, and Venstre are their successors. So far as I know, the issues of small- versus large- landowners are not currently major ones in Denmark. The point is that labels often grow from history, and are not invented to suit the needs of the day. Indeed, the modern terms of left and right come from where people sat in a chamber at the time of the French Revolution. Even if we decide that we must (perhaps for reasons of simplicity) use a single axis, Left-Right as it exists at the moment is not a useful one. Two axes would be more useful (see www.politicalcompass.org) and there’s a case for using more than two.

Usefullness here is in terms of describing them in political science terms and for the use of practical politics.

‘Violent, racist, homophobic, populist Holocaust-deniers’ seems to work.

Question is: what are we doing about it?

xD.