The BNP meltdown


by Rumbold
8th May, 2010 at 10:53 am    

One of the arguments made on Pickled Politics and elsewhere was that while the BNP were great at exploiting people’s fears and casting themselves as insurgents, when it came to the pesky business of actual government they found now rather trickier. Now the electorate in Barking and Dagenham have demonstrated how they feel about the BNP’s record of governance on the local council by voting all twelve of them out. This capped a poor night for the party overall, which left them will only 19 councillors, down from 45.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Current affairs,The BNP






51 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blog post:: The BNP meltdown http://bit.ly/99s6I0


  2. Linda Spurdle

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: The BNP meltdown http://bit.ly/99s6I0


  3. earwicga

    RT @pickledpolitics Pickled Politics » The BNP meltdown http://bit.ly/cXqSmZ


  4. Brian Paget

    RT @sunny_hundal: Blog post:: The BNP meltdown http://bit.ly/99s6I0


  5. Kevin Dykes

    RT @pickledpolitics Pickled Politics » The BNP meltdown http://bit.ly/cXqSmZ


  6. The Trump Network

    Pickled Politics » The BNP meltdown http://bit.ly/cGqJcC


  7. Amatulwadud

    Yayyyyy Brits: The BNP meltdown http://tinyurl.com/29q3gpv


  8. The BNP meltdown – Yay! « the bad days will end

    [...] 05 2010 · Leave a Comment The BNP meltdown: “One of the arguments made on Pickled Politics and elsewhere was that while the BNP were [...]




  1. cjcjc — on 8th May, 2010 at 11:32 am  

    Respect and BNP meltdown.
    Double result!

  2. Lee John Barnes — on 8th May, 2010 at 11:39 am  

    Ho ho ho ho

    If you define 541,743 votes as meltdown then you must be from another planet.

    Over half a million people voted BNP.

    You keep laughing – as we keep growing.

    Slowly and steadily we are growing stronger and stronger.

    Its like the cowboys in the fort saying ‘ we are safe here as there are no indians inside the fort ‘ whilst outside the hills are swarming with Apache.

    The Establishment think they are safe in their fort, they need to think again.

    If you think politics is just about joining the cowboys in the fort, then you student wankers have learnt nothing from history.

    Revolutions always begin the streets, they only finish in Parliament.

  3. Rumbold — on 8th May, 2010 at 11:41 am  

    Cjcjc:

    Agreed.

  4. earwicga — on 8th May, 2010 at 11:46 am  

    Respect still have 4 councillors, including Salma Yaqoob, but lost 8 seats.

    Great news that BNP lost so many seats. Where are the 19 seats they have now?

  5. Jenny — on 8th May, 2010 at 11:47 am  

    See, you should just leave them to it. They hang themselves every time they open their mouths. By making a fuss, you just give them publicity.

  6. earwicga — on 8th May, 2010 at 11:50 am  

    Really Jenny? By exposing just what the BNP are made of has seems to have resulted in them losing seats so I’m not sure on what you base your comment.

  7. Rumbold — on 8th May, 2010 at 11:54 am  

    Earwiga:

    I think they are mostly the their northern areas. But the full local elections results by constituency don’t seem to have appeared yet.

  8. Rumbold — on 8th May, 2010 at 1:23 pm  
  9. chairwoman — on 8th May, 2010 at 1:30 pm  

    “Great news that BNP lost so many seats. Where are the 19 seats they have now?”

    Under Nick Griffin’s bottom?

  10. chairwoman — on 8th May, 2010 at 1:33 pm  

    Hey there Moderator du jour, by comment has vanished into the ether!

  11. Jenny — on 8th May, 2010 at 2:28 pm  

    No earwicga. You lot just got on my nerves!

  12. earwicga — on 8th May, 2010 at 2:30 pm  

    Aw, sorry to hear that Jenny :)

  13. Ravi Naik — on 8th May, 2010 at 2:50 pm  

    In regards to the BNP results, the only positive spin for them is that they got a larger share of votes now than in 2005 (from 0.7% to 1.9%).

    However, they lost half the votes they got in the last European elections (2009) – from 1 million to 563,743. Along with massive council losses, and being further way from getting an MP than in 2005, it seems clear that once people get to know the BNP up and close, they immediately throw them out.

  14. Dalbir — on 8th May, 2010 at 2:57 pm  

    Who is going to explain this northern connection with the BNP then?

    Their nose dive in Barking was beautiful.

    That being said, the powers that be had better start giving lower socio-economic status white families a visibly better deal on council accommodation. Some minor compromise is warranted in the name of cohesion.

    That and a competitive jobs market seems to be their main gripes.

    Oh and Islam.

  15. Refresh — on 8th May, 2010 at 3:11 pm  

    Fantastic result!

    Feels like the 70′s when the last wave was repulsed.

    Griffin is moaning that too many people voted. Doesn’t quite say it like that of course.

    I am also taking this opportunity to congratulate Margaret Hodge – for a change.

    Well done to everyone who worked so hard in dealing with the BNP, EDL, SIOE and of course continue to do so.

    It cannot stop there, the Northern towns next.

  16. Don — on 8th May, 2010 at 3:40 pm  

    We had a BNP candidate for the first time this year. He got 2.8% of the vote which is worryingly high.

    Two interesting things emerged from his candidacy. He claimed to be a ‘church-going Methodist’, prompting a letter to the local paper from the Methodist Church pointing out that membership of the BNP automatically disqualifies someone from the Methodist communion, without appeal. He could walk through the door and take a pew but he can’t claim to be a Methodist. I hadn’t realised that. Do any other churches have that line?

    The other was an e-mail from a (Methodist) friend saying that our BNP candidate attended her church and had been rather creepily trying to get a date with her. Nothing surprising about that, she is very attractive, intelligent and single. And black.

  17. Maccy — on 8th May, 2010 at 5:15 pm  

    Of course the BNP suffered a serious setback here but I would strongly urge against complacency and crowing. They did treble their GE vote from last time, and it is wrong to extrapolate the EU elections to the GE as people always vote differently.

    The threat remains just as strong as ever, and as Dalbir pointed out above the B&D authorities had better deliver on their promises now as Labour are completely in charge and solely liable now. They can’t blame anyone else if they fail.

    But effectively that was another area of success for the BNP really: They managed to get the immigration debate shifted into the open and pretty much on their terms. nationally too, and without them in town there is no way Hodge would ever have spent her time knocking white working class doors telling them she understands their fears about fast mass immigration; based upon her past she would have most likely condemning them all as racists and fascists (if not their face anyhow al la Brown style.)

    The BNP forced Hodge to take a tough line on immigrants and make solid promises to back that up. She will now have to deliver on that or pay for it. As will the council. But I don’t think they will somehow. I really do not think they will.

    Because the media has focused on gloating over the BNP failure, when the current situation hits home and is likely to be an unmitigated disaster, people may well reflect on the much touted fact that the BNP have little power left and it could well leave them looking untarnished by it all, yet again.

    The coalition needed will not be a great prospect and we may well have to face another GE before too long; there will have to be serious public cuts and tax hikes and could face Greek style protests; as well as the fact all coalition spend as much time, if not more, fighting with each other which could earn two mainstream parties the utter contempt of the masses.

    Most frighteningly is the Lib Dem insistence that PR is the price for coalition (or at least a referendum, which, as a democrat I couldn’t argue with) but if PR were introduced, just with this GE BNP vote they would have gained around 8 seats.

    The battle may be won, but the war is far from over.

  18. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 8th May, 2010 at 5:30 pm  

    The thing to take away is that once the electorate actually see them in action, once they realise the bnp don’t know what abstain means or think a council budget is ‘gobbledygook’ or watch them resign after a few weeks because ‘they don’t understand’ they want rid.

    Turns out it’s very difficult to polish a turd with tabloid headlines.

    This is fun:

    http://ethicsgirls.com/bnpcost/

    Cyclops makes most of the candidates (those who aren’t his mates or who have a ‘decent’ chance – barnbrook, etc) put up the deposit themselves, doesn’t cost the bnp anything.

  19. Ravi Naik — on 8th May, 2010 at 5:33 pm  

    Most frighteningly is the Lib Dem insistence that PR is the price for coalition (or at least a referendum, which, as a democrat I couldn’t argue with) but if PR were introduced, just with this GE BNP vote they would have gained around 8 seats.

    How would that be calculated?

  20. earwicga — on 8th May, 2010 at 5:42 pm  

    Enough with the ‘Cyclops’! There is enough to criticise without resorting to physical aspects.

    Ravi – I would like to know how that is calculated as well.

  21. Maccy — on 8th May, 2010 at 5:53 pm  

    Ravi and Earwicga: The way PR is usually worked out that the percentage of the vote relates to the share of seats in the governing chamber.

    I worked it out wrong actually, the BNP share of 1.9% of 650 seats would equate to 12 seats.

    DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells: I am not at all convinced that such elements played a part for most people; I think it was more a case of clinging to the best known teddy bear in times of economic fear. And that is why I think too much crowing could well backfire when this coalition fails, as I think it will, to do anything effective at all.

  22. earwicga — on 8th May, 2010 at 5:55 pm  

    Maccy – is it likely that a PR system will keep 650 seats?

  23. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 8th May, 2010 at 5:58 pm  

    But effectively that was another area of success for the BNP really: They managed to get the immigration debate

    Awwwwwww, did they ?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L6U0ZQE32E

    NL manipulated the bnp to get the centre shifted to the right, not vice versa.

    I’d also remind you of Hodge’s comments about how fascists ‘had a point’ in 2006 or whenever it was.

  24. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 8th May, 2010 at 6:18 pm  

    DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells: I am not at all convinced that such elements played a part for most people; I think it was more a case of clinging to the best known teddy bear in times of economic fear. And that is why I think too much crowing could well backfire when this coalition fails, as I think it will, to do anything effective at all.

    Look at places like Bradford and Burnley, down to four councillors from a peak of what? Twelve, if memory serves?

    The erosion of the bnp in those places occurred during the ‘good times’ (two of the losses came in Burnley this week) and the only catalyst was themselves.

  25. Maccy — on 8th May, 2010 at 6:49 pm  

    Earwicga: I personally think it is more likely that they would keep the same constituencies then draw up new ones. It would be a long, hard and contentious task and I cannot see any benefit at all in it. So I would guess that the 650 seats would probably remain.

    DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells: I am not sure why you are angrily railing against me now; I am merely giving my honest objective assessment of the situation: The BNP did force the agenda nationally and locally with Hodge and she and the Labour council have now put themselves in a position where they have made tough promises to get re-elected and they must make good on their tough promises or be routed themselves, potentially completely.

    That is not a message of support by any means, if you really don’t understand that, it is an objective realistic look at the situation. Railing and ranting gets people nowhere and makes the people doing it look loopy.

    The same applies nationally: People would seem to be sick of Labour, but when the other two mainstream parties coalesce and quite possibly make a hash of the economic crisis and spend copious amounts of time politicking against each other rather then governing it could just make people break altogether from the main three. That is why I am saying crowing too loudly right now that the BNP have no power (and therefore no liability) is probably not the best of things to do.

    The BNP are not going away. This is just one election.

  26. KB Player — on 8th May, 2010 at 7:00 pm  

    That is why I am saying crowing too loudly right now that the BNP have no power (and therefore no liability) is probably not the best of things to do.

    No, but it’s great fun so let’s enjoy it while we can. I do take your point that the BNP are not necessarily a spent force and no-one should be complacent about their possible revival.

  27. halima — on 8th May, 2010 at 7:46 pm  

    Hope not Hate did a great job to stop the BNP vote in Barking and Dagenham . My thank goes out to them for the fantastic grassroots mobilising they did – and well done to to Margaret Hodge and Jon Cruddas for fighting and winning in two of the most toughest constituencies in London.

    http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/

  28. Roger — on 8th May, 2010 at 8:35 pm  

    The B.N.P. did not put “the immigration debatein the open”. Immigration has always been a political matter, going back to complaints about Flemings in the fourteenth century and laws demanding that “blackamores” leave England under Elizabeth I. That’s apart from the fact that Roman, Anglo-Saxons and Norman immigrants were not exactly welcomed. What has happened recently is that the connexion between immigration and racism is fraying. Just as the Irish could redefine themselves as British-ish in contrast to Asian and West Indian immigrants, descendants of the latter emphasise the foreignness of- especially- East Europeans. Yhe problems the B.N.P. represent and create will notsimply vanish, even if the B.N.P. themselves go the way of Mosleyites and the National Front.

  29. douglas clark — on 8th May, 2010 at 8:56 pm  

    Most PR systems have ‘election thresholds’, usually between 2 and 5% of votes cast. Get less than that and you don’t get a delegate.

    Dunno how that would work unless we recognise England, Scotland, Wales and NI as distinct constituencies. ‘Cause clearly none of other three could realistically get 5% of the national (UK) vote.

  30. Maccy — on 8th May, 2010 at 10:13 pm  

    Roger: Over this election in order to fight what was perceived to be a big potential support base for the BNP, most of the parties’ representatives vied to make a tougher position on immigration then their opponents. There is little point in denying it. The BNP forced the issue.

    And as I said, were it not for the perceived threat of the BNP, Hodge would never have dreamed knocking white working class doors telling them she fully understand their concerns over fast mass immigration, the women’s entire past tells you that she would consider any such sentiments as racist and fascist, and I would say very much still does.

    She did and said what she did and said to get re-elected. I personally spoke to her and listened to her canvassing other people in the street and the only thing mentioned was immigration and immigrants and housing in Barking. I raised that with her, that the BNP were setting the tone and agenda, and she said that was partially true. But still went on to make promises she can’t keep such as ‘local housing for local people’ and even bringing back the ‘sons and daughters’ housing policy. It won’t happen.

    Well she now has been re-elected and so have a full Labour council and of course now people will demand that these promises to be honoured. What an idiotic position to be put in.

    The truth is that Barking council has a large deficit and central government have indicated that they will cut funding, so there may well have to be tax hikes and public service cuts that will rest solely at Labours door as well as the promise that wont be kept.

    They should have campaigned honestly and to their real stance, not trying to be some kind of watered down BNP.

    That is where I now see they have placed themselves: Set up to fail.

  31. inders — on 9th May, 2010 at 1:08 am  

    They should just rename the BNP to the ‘Nick Griffin Party’.

    Its turning more and more into a personality cult or a religious group.

    In fact with the costs been delegated to the faithful foot soldiers and the profits centralised, its a bit like a political version of the Jehovah’s witnesses.

  32. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells — on 9th May, 2010 at 4:48 pm  

    DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells: I am not sure why you are angrily railing against me now; I am merely giving my honest objective assessment of the situation: The BNP did force the agenda nationally and locally with Hodge and she and the Labour council have now put themselves in a position where they have made tough promises to get re-elected and they must make good on their tough promises or be routed themselves, potentially completely.

    Who’s ‘angrily railing’? Not I. There’s nothing really to rail at, you haven’t offered any evidence for your claims.

    More proof that the bnp are not ‘pushing the debate’ and that infact this has been going on for years – http://www.mediawise.org.uk/print.php?id=647

    The following are examples of headlines to major news stories or features at that time:

    “Storm Over the Two-Wife Migrants” — The Sun, 6/5/76
    “Invasion of Asians Forces Borough to Call for Help” — Telegraph, 6/5/76
    “New Flood of Asians to Britain” — Mirror, 6/5/76
    “Another 20,000 Asians are on the Way” — The Sun, 6/5/76
    “Asians ‘trick BR to enter’” — Mail, 8/5/76
    “Scandal of Day-Tripper Immigrants” — Mirror, 8/5/76
    “‘Queue Jumping’ Rumpus” — Express, 8/5/76
    “Banda’s Asians Fly In” — News of the World, 9/5/76
    “Refused Welfare — but ‘I’ll settle for council house’” — Express, 10/5/76
    “Asians fly out of ‘New Uganda’” — The Sun, 17/5/76
    “Mellish cries ‘Enough’ on Asian influx” –Telegraph, 18/5/76

    As #28 points out you can always go further back.

    Even the UN got involved in 2001.

    http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=963&Cr=refugee&Cr1=asylum

    “Three such attacks in the space of three days is a very alarming development, but in UNHCR’s view was sadly predictable given the climate of vilification of asylum-seekers that has taken hold in the UK in recent years,” Mr. Janowski told reporters in Geneva. “In some mass circulation newspapers, asylum-seekers are continually branded a problem, statistics are being twisted and negative stories are being endlessly highlighted. This often deliberate attempt to tarnish the name of an entire group has been so successful that the words ‘asylum-seeker’ and ‘refugee’ have even become a term of abuse in school playgrounds.”

    As for Hodge, enjoy some of her greatest hits from three or four years ago, her far right rhetoric is nothing new, I’ve no idea why you’re pretending it is and more to the point, why, when she’s been saying this for years and in voters eyes (according to you) has failed to deliver, would they then proceed to vote for her in such huge numbers? Rather floors your entire premise.

    Hodge attacked for ‘BNP language’
    - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6690007.stm

    Call for migrant housing rethink
    - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6673911.stm-

    Hodge views echo our policy – BNP – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6694191.stm

    Minister says BNP tempting voters
    - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4913164.stm

  33. Mr Smith — on 9th May, 2010 at 7:56 pm  

    @Maccy At last, someone who is looking at things objectively and who doesn’t seem to have an axe to grind, like most of the other posters. Thanks for the unbiased, either way, post, which was a pleasure to read unlike a lot of things which are posted on the web now-a-days :(
    PS if you wrote for a new paper, I’d buy it!

  34. Bill Brook — on 10th May, 2010 at 4:27 am  

    I think Pickled Politics must take a lot of the credit for the failure of the BNP to gain any seats at Westminster. You have not been alone in attacking them, but the measured and cerebral approach that you adopted has certainly had results. Well done!

  35. damon — on 10th May, 2010 at 12:19 pm  

    6,620 votes in Barking and 4,952 in neighbouring Dagenham and Rainham is still a lot of votes for the BNP.

    They don’t seem to like the way that the Hope not Hate activists were practically taking ”the immigrants” to the polling station.

    One of their supporters had this to say about it:

    ”In my area of Alibon ward, it was hard to find a British person who was not going to vote for the BNP.
    Hodge was elected by the African vote.”

    The BNP itself might be defeated and outmaneuvered in elections, but some of the raw feelings of their supporters do not change very quickly.
    Whatever Billy Bragg might say on his visits back to his old neighbourhood, (from his cliff-top mansion in Dorset), there is a hardcore section of society in that part of London that does not want their area to become like next door East Ham.

  36. Jai — on 10th May, 2010 at 12:50 pm  

    Along with all the other recent developments, the BNP is also facing a renewed legal threat over their redrafted constitution, which (far from actually removing the problematic sections) has just involved “moving clauses around” to other parts of the constitution and rewording them slightly, in an attempt to circumvent the injunction.

    Griffin has been directly responsible for this and could be charged with contempt of court, resulting in either a hefty fine or actual imprisonment.

    See the following:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/09/bnp-nick-griffin-constitution

  37. Jai — on 10th May, 2010 at 12:52 pm  

    Griffin has also released a formal statement addressing the BNP’s supporters, containing his “analysis” of the election result. His message can be read in full here:

    http://1millionunited.org/blogs/notmyvoice/2010/05/08/bnp-election-failure-2010-griffin-speaks/

  38. Jai — on 10th May, 2010 at 1:00 pm  

    With regards to the recent incident in Barking involving Bailey, Nick Griffin was questioned about it by Nick Knowles from Searchlight after the election results started coming in.

    The short interview can be seen on video here:

    http://1millionunited.org/blogs/blog/2010/05/08/griffins-forced-smiles-for-searchlight-man/

    Note the false allegation by Griffin about the Asians in the incident “carrying knives”. In reality, no knives were actually involved in the confrontation and neither was there any indication that they were indeed carrying such weapons.

    It’s also worth noting that during the incident itself (obviously also captured on video in full), Bailey first randomly accused the Asians of being “robbers” and, after the two groups confronted each other, he then proceeded to repeatedly lay his hands on one of the Asians present. In British legal terms the latter could be classified as common assault. Subsequently, matters obviously escalated considerably, ie. spitting, punching, kicking etc.

    Apparently one of the Asians involved has formally reported the matter to the police, who are now investigating it.

  39. Maccy — on 10th May, 2010 at 3:21 pm  

    Mr Smith: Thank you very much; objectivity is the key to clarity. And honesty is perquisite of true democracy.

    DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells: You were angrily railing and you are doing it again, this time with the sadly predicable added conspiracy theoryesque questioning of my motivation to remain objective. I am a centrist, a democrat, and for me objectivity is natural. I no longer have any party in the UK that truly represents my views and so I need complete objectivity in order to decide where to pitch my tent.

    You seem to me to be the typical far left ‘campaigner’ and all that comes with it.

    I despise the far left as much as much I despise the far right, both are the route to tyranny and murder and in fact statistically Socialists have murdered far, far more people the Nazis and over a much longer period of time and in pretty much every country they have ever had power in.

    I want nothing to do with either camp and I want neither camp having anything to do with the levers of power in this country.

    You don’t achieve that by turning your back on reality; by entrenching yourself so fanatically in one position that you cannot see, let alone understand, why others may view the same inputs in a different way. If you don’t understand your enemy, you have no hope of defeating them.

    Those headlines you post mean nothing; they come from the right-wing press that has a right-wing readership; the left-wing press such as the Mirror and the Guardian regularly produce pro-immigration stories and headlines and these are devoured by a left-wing market. They are preaching to the converted.

    Politicians base campaigns against parties and policies that are likely to take votes from them, not some headline in the sun that converts to no political capital. That is why the BNP were targeted by all the parties in this Election and many of their slogans have been used by the mainstream, even Gordon Brown. The BNP set the agenda of this election.

    As for Hodge having been saying these things for years that is because the BNP have been a threat for years and the very articles you link to at the foot of your comment proves that connection, which rather floors your whole premise; she was cynically echoing the BNP in order to neutralise the BNP and that is a very foolish, very dangerous thing to do.

    But to be honest, if you don’t like objectivity and want to attack someone who does then I am not in the least bit interested in you. Your tone seems remarkably similar to all these outside so-called ‘campaigners’ who descended upon Barking; some were OK but many were just hysterical, screaming abusive nuisances who made the place very uncomfortable to live in for weeks when the vast majority, Bragg included, didn’t even live in Barking and weren’t even standing for election.

  40. Ravi Naik — on 10th May, 2010 at 4:31 pm  

    That is why the BNP were targeted by all the parties in this Election and many of their slogans have been used by the mainstream, even Gordon Brown. The BNP set the agenda of this election.

    Your assumption is that had the BNP been silent on the immigration issue, that the electorate – in this time of economic recession – would not consider it as a top issue.

    You also assume that the BNP sets the agenda, rather than as a parasite, feed on people’s grievances and hijack any issue to pursue their own racist agenda. Their new love for Christianity is a triangulation against Islamophobia that came about with the rise of Islamic terrorism since 9/11.

    The BNP are followers of ugly trends, yes, but they do not set the agenda.

  41. Maccy — on 10th May, 2010 at 4:48 pm  

    Ravi Naik: I am not sure what that means “the BNP been silent on the immigration issue” when clearly they wasn’t and never are. You need to clarify this.

    And you also appear to be making a lot of assumptions about assumptions I haven’t made.

    Just for instance, Brown took the BNP slogan ‘British jobs for British workers’ and presented it as his own, even though he knew it was a lie; Hodge took the BNP slogan ‘local houses for local people’ and made it her own even though she knows it is nigh on impossible to do and I doubt she has any intention of even attempting it. Hodge started mimicking the BNP and their policies because she though this would defuse the BNP vote and save her seat.

    Objectively, terms like “feed on people’s grievances and hijack any issue” are really applicable to any political party as that is the bread and butter of their business. The Labour party have been notorious for it. But also objectively the BNP’s stance and policies haven’t changed much at all over the years despite facing complete hostility from the mainstream media and politicians so I cannot see any real justification that they are ‘hijacking’ or ‘feeding on’ on anything: The issues the BNP campaign on are their core issues and raison d’être.

    This is why objectivity seems to attract so much hostility from the far left; it is perceived as support, which it is not; it is just not an entrenched party line of constant criticism and myopic positioning despite the facts.

  42. Ravi.Nk — on 10th May, 2010 at 6:29 pm  

    Ravi Naik: I am not sure what that means “the BNP been silent on the immigration issue” when clearly they wasn’t and never are. You need to clarify this.

    When you say that the BNP set the agenda on immigration, you are saying that immigration became an issue because of the BNP, and not because of the usual suspects, like job losses and recession.

    Objectively, terms like “feed on people’s grievances and hijack any issue” are really applicable to any political party as that is the bread and butter of their business.

    That’s call pandering. The BNP hijacks issues to pursue its racial agenda. I mean, it’s not even that subtle.

    This is why objectivity seems to attract so much hostility from the far left; it is perceived as support, which it is not; it is just not an entrenched party line of constant criticism and myopic positioning despite the facts.

    Tell me, as a self-declared centrist, what policies do you disagree with the BNP?

  43. Maccy — on 10th May, 2010 at 7:45 pm  

    Ravi Naik: I detected some hostility in the first comment and that seems to have been borne out by your second. Why are you now asking me what policies I disagree with the BNP? What are you suggesting now? And aside from the fact that I have already declared myself as centrist, this has nothing to do with me anyway. Why make it personal?

    That is what objectivity seems to attract amongst those who seem to despise objectivity.

    When I say that the BNP set the agenda on immigration I am saying that that happened because they were the only party willing, well enthusiastic, to talk about immigration and stopping it; because it has now become a major concern for the British people, the other parties now addressed it in terms that made them often vie over who could be the toughest. That rhetoric was all the more present where the BNP were perceived to be the strongest. The other parties grossly overestimated the votes for the BNP and so campaigned accordingly.

    I have already highlighted just a couple of BNP slogans directly stolen by Labour as an example of BNP agenda setting and then Cameron went on to declare a ‘National Service’ of community service, a long standing BNP policy as his own whilst UKIP appeared to take several policy areas.

    But I think that ‘Mr Smith’ above hit the nail on the head here. You too clearly have an ‘axe to grind’ here and consequently do not like objectivity. If you climbed out of your trench and thought about it for 2 seconds you would realise how ridiculous you sound when you say that other parties ‘pander’ only the BNP ‘hijack’!

    As I said, the BNP policies haven’t really changed since day one so they are not even ‘pandering’, let along ‘hijacking’ anything. It is quite clearly what they believe in.

    With so much to attack why do you get so chewed up with things that are simply not true? Do you not realise that it makes people less inclined to believe you? You damage the BNP more being objective rather then rewriting history over every single thing.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.