You may have caught some of the news about the arguments within Labour recently. Some Trade Union bosses were grumbling about another group who have called itself “Progress”. Progress have dared to receive funding from sources other than the Trade Union movement! Progress have been described as Blairite.
The reason I mention it is because I recently attended a seminar, under the umbrella of Progress, with the “Policy Network”. The meeting was under the “Chatham House Rule” which means I shouldn’t name names!
Present was an academic from Nottingham University, who has studied the rise and fall of the BNP. He recently wrote a study of the similarities between the BNP and UKIP. There was also an academic from Manchester University who is collaborating in a study of UKIP with the Nottingham academic. They are both looking at the rising tide, as they put it, of populist or radical right wing opinion (by which they mean nationalist, Eurosceptic, anti-mass immigration and anti-establishment).
Almost all the commentators seemed to be firmly of the view that the BNP are now terminally beyond the point of recovery, which, they thought, presents a worrying opportunity for a populist or radical right-wing party to emerge.
One of the interesting speakers was someone from Hope Not Hate, who talked about their campaign against the BNP in Barking and Dagenham and in Stoke on Trent. From this speech it emerged that the BNP’s positioning was part of its weakness. Apparently even amongst people who are most concerned about the effects of immigration, there is still considerable dislike of the BNP brand, with its image, not only of racism, which ordinary people are anxious to disassociate themselves from, but also, just as significantly, any tinge of street violence or of any gang mentality, which in particular the women in the targeted areas were likely to be very hostile to.
It was pointed out that if a party came into “populist” right wing politics from another issue, then the spokesman of that party is more likely to be treated as respectable and listened to than representatives of a party who seemed to be founded solely on opposing immigration. The example given was the comparison of the treatment of by the media and audience reaction to Nick Griffin and to Nigel Farrage.
The meeting was also interesting from the point of view that it showed that elements within Labour are becoming hugely aware that they are vulnerable to losing support in England and they need to adopt strategies to “re-engage with Englishness”. (Thus Ed Milliband's recent attempt to discuss Englishness)
All in all it was a very interesting meeting which I think should give strong grounds for confidence that the cause of Englishness and of English Nationalism is making such headway that it’s causing considerable alarm amongst those who have traditionally been its opponents. I wonder whether even John Prescott would still try to claim now, as he used to, that “there is no such nationality as English”?
To be fair, what these so-called 'academics' don't seem to realise is that The BNP has achieved just as high a level of Government that UKIP has EVER achieved (MEP's) without ANY form of media endorsement, but complete demonisation - UKIP are constantly 'plugged' on various TV shows, newspapers & general media and are always endorsed/given a platform, but still they have failed to elect an MP - obviously the FPTP election system makes it EXTREMELY hard for a 'smaller' party to breakthrough.
ReplyDeleteThis clearly shows that The BNP isn't dead at all but if anything has over achieved by electing MEP's in the first place, it also mainly highlights how spectacularly bad UKIP have done by not making any significant breakthrough such as electing an MP.
I mean what do these 'academics' expect The BNP to have achieved when they are NEVER given a platform and are constantly demonised. It's a miracle that they have MEP's. As for comparisons between Nick Griffin & Nigel Farrage well both are chairman of their parties and both are MEP's enough said.
Finally UKIP should've really made a breakthrough on the GLA with all the hype over them, but didn't, commentators were predicting 2 GLA seats - guess what they got 0, same as The BNP & same as the English Democrats by the 'academics' argument/concept these parties are all dead then.
In Norway, Sweden, Holland and Belgium there is just one "right wing" or should be say common sense party. This is why, especially under proportional representation, they gain around 15% of the vote and can influence policy. Here we have the BNP, UKIP, the EDs and now a new kid on the block, Paul Weston and Tommy Robinson's British Freedom Party. If there were to be a way of merging them all then you would find that progress could be made. The problem is probably the old British class system. The BNP say what UKIP are thinking but dare not say because they are middle class. The British Freedom Party is linking the middle class Paul Weston with the working class Tommy Robinson. Not sure how that is working as Paul Weston has written pieces on the ethnic cleansing of England through mass immigration and Robinson is meant to be only anti-muslim not pro-indigenous British. The EDs also does not appear to be split on class lines. Perhaps it is an indication of the comparitive classlessness of countries on the continent and in Scandinavia that you get leaders who are articulate and good orators but confident and powerful in their presentation, i.e. not quite so "nice". If all the "conservative"in the 1950s sense parties were to coalesce here than they would poll way beyond the Limp-Lib Democrats. But how this is ever going to happen is a bit of a mystery.
ReplyDeleteDear Robin
ReplyDeletewhat you comment is crucial, in fact the key to the problem that we have in England,
Conservative Upper class with people who have these aspirations.
Liberals intellectual middleclass
Labour working class
BNP mainly working class
UKIP intellectual middleclass
ED nationalistic
what does this show which is only a crude definition
but it shows entrenched groups in our country who would rather go to war with each other than work together for the sake of the country and the people within.
It is the lasting legacy of the Normans who had disappeared from the scene by the beginning of the thirteenth century and it is the `them and us`, it has caused so much conflict within England, but is alien on the Continent. We only have to see the pathetic scenario of Thatcher and Scargill two adults behaving like two delinquents, there they were slugging it out and our history is all about this, `them and us`,
sadly it is even in the English Democrats the enemy within,I will always remember when that retired naval officer said of my tie at a conference dinner does that tie represent an ice cream firm,it was a tie of the RGJ
two things came to mind the typical ignorance of an officer and the other to take him outside and do something nasty to him, most of my oppos would have taken the later,the trouble is until the E D has rid itself of people like this then there will be problems within because they are the real enemy the enemy within and why the E D should be taking a Christian path `together`
until the English people work together as a whole then we are finished,and the country clearly shows this now what it shows is a reflection of us everything else is a result of us not being to work `together`
this basically is the problem of England we are like the Germanic states before Bismark when he united them to become Germany,we need to do the same unite together and that is what King Alfred `The Great`did became strong to defeat the Vikings.
regards
Stephen
We must remember one thing namely that the English do come together to fight a war in a way that the French certainly never do. Even in the First World War, even thought the senior officers stayed well away from the fighting, the lower ranked officers led their men with great bravery and were greatly respected and more of those middle class lower ranked officers died proportionately than the ordinary soldiers. If only we could get across to the English that we are at war but they do not even realise nor ever really have how easily they are being manipulated into extinction. The lack of cohesion is depressing as it reminds me of the Brythonic Celts in the face of the Anglo-Saxons, too busy fighting amongst themselves to put up a proper resistance. Mrs T was only a grocer's daughter who went to Oxford but she saw how the miners had done for the weak and disastrous Heath and was not going to let it happen to her. Our enemy is very clever, the more it destroys our identity the more we lose the will to fight. The Olympics shambles would never have happened 50 years ago - even assuming muslim terrorism - because we were still a homgenous people and all the security guards etc would have been British with a common purpose. From what I gather the lot that Group 4 are dealing with are the cheapest third imports they can find. Secondly, such an important job would never have been handed over to the private sector (yes you can blame Mrs T and the greed-scheme for that) who will cut corners to maximise profits, especially to a firm with a track record of losing so many prisoners. The rest of the world must be peeing themselves. In fact they will probably cancelling their flights right now having heard that there is a 50/50 chance of being blown up. Still, no problem with queues at Heathrow. Stay at home chaps and watch it on tv.
Delete