December 01, 2007

Reader article: Where is Roger?

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Iliacus. We welcome any contributions (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste) from our supporters. Please send your articles to us at lancaster.uaf@zen.co.uk

Although the BNP's national accounts for 2006 have still not been deposited with the Electoral Commission, the accounts for the "Regional Accounting Unit" have been lodged. They make interesting, if rather confusing, reading. It's certainly clear that the BNP's financial arrangements do not follow the general pattern. "They're accounts Jim, but not as we know them!"

As ever with the far-right there are plenty of ludicrous errors - odd that these paragons of our native culture have such difficulty with the language!

Putting that aside (for the moment at least), one of the most useful sections of the document is the listing of "Party Groups, Branches and Contact Units". Now, most political parties are organised on a constituency basis. In weaker areas there may be city-wide, or multi-constituency associations, but I don't think any other party adopts the BNP structure. Its significance makes an explanation worthwhile.

Loyal to the party's fuhrerprinzip approach, a local "uinit" (sic) is "accorded branch status at the discretion of the Group Development Department". Only two positions are recognised by the party (and appointed - or should I say anointed - from above) - an Organiser and a Fund Holder. Contact Units are "one-person units, ineligible for financial as they don't have a registered fund-holder" (yes, I too think that should read "financial something" but, hey, this is the BNP!).

At face value, 2006 was a good year for branch development. At the end of 2005 there appear to have been 91 branches - by the end of 2006 the figure was 130. But this conceals a high level of "churn". Yes, there were 65 new branches, but there were 26 branches which ceased to operate or were renamed. In Birmingham, for example, the city-wide branch was replaced by three branches (Birmingham East, North and South). So, rearrange a handful of activists and, hey presto, a net increase of two branches! Some of the branches also seem to cover huge swathes of the country - such as Norfolk, Wocestershire (sic), and Dorset. And there's a puzzling overlap of branches elsewhere - if there is a "Wrexham & North Wales" branch, how can there also be a Conwy branch? One senses smoke and mirrors.

The Contact Units are perhaps even more revealing. Remember, a Unit is literally one person willing to act as a contact point for enquiries. So what do the following all have in common? Dover, Maidstone, Oxfordshire, Slough, Peterborough, Basingstoke, Colchester .... Yes, they are all significant English towns, and in each of them the BNP can only muster a single member as a point of contact!

And returning to the theme of smoke and mirrors, 2006 saw the Leicester branch and two Leicestershire Contact Units dissolved, and replaced by just four Contact Units across the county! Four members in the whole of Leicestershire? Britain's fastest growing political force? I think not.

Two footnotes on Contact Units. Where is "Tonbridge Wells"? I know Tonbridge, and Tunbridge Wells is famous as the home of "Disgusted of ...". Only the BNP could conflate the two so stupidly. And where on earth is "Roger", the published identity of one of the BNP's Contact Units?

Iliacus

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh very good and well up to your usual standard. Welcome to Iliacus. :)

Anonymous said...

Same here. Very witty and nicely sarky too. Good article.

Anonymous said...

I suspect the lack of sense or coherence in the BNPs regional accounts is something to do with the fact that they're presented by Dave Hannam, who has long been acknowleged as incapable of doing the job.

Anonymous said...

Smoke and mirrors indeed. One wonders what the membership figures are likely to show when the real accounts are presented to the EC. They could make very interesting reading indeed.

Anonymous said...

Excellent. Thank you Iliacus.

Anonymous said...

Hannams a dork and bloody useless. Good article tho.

Anonymous said...

The beginning of the end for Nick Griffin.

Anonymous said...

Calderdale's last remaining BNP councillor has been sacked over a disagreement, and the stormfront trolls are posting dozens of pro-BNP comments as usual.

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/We-have-sacked-Wallace-say.3543597.jp

Anonymous said...

The BNP are finished.

Anonymous said...

Great article Iliacus. Welcome to the LUAF team. Are you going to be a regular contributer?

Anonymous said...

Thank you for all your kind comments.

Surprised not to see any BNP trolls on yet, answering the question:

Where is Roger (and remember, Roger is a place not a person) ?

(Perhaps it's where the BNP Central Accounts can be found !)

Iliacus

Unknown said...

Well put, Iliacus.

Surprised not to see any BNP trolls on yet

Oooh, I'm not ;-)

Anonymous said...

"Where is Roger (and remember, Roger is a place not a person) ?

(Perhaps it's where the BNP Central Accounts can be found !)

Iliacus"

I'm not sure that's what people mean when they say the BNP sccounts have been rogered.

Anonymous said...

Interesting, but a few comments:

'Contact Units are "one-person units, ineligible for financial as they don't have a registered fund-holder" (yes, I too think that should read "financial something" but, hey, this is the BNP!).'

This is the kind of sentence you might leave unfinished because you can't think offhand how to complete it, then you forget about it. For a good reason in this case, since this should read 'ineligible to control party funds' or something like this, (so 'financial' doesn't actually go anywhere).

'Remember, a Unit is literally one person willing to act as a contact point for enquiries. So what do the following all have in common? Dover, Maidstone, Oxfordshire, Slough, Peterborough, Basingstoke, Colchester .... Yes, they are all significant English towns, and in each of them the BNP can only muster a single member as a point of contact!'

On the face of it this seems a reasonable criticism, but areas with 'contacts' may still contain quite large numbers of members. What may be lacking - at this stage anyway - are two people willing to become organiser & fundholder. (The 'contact' unit is meant to be a stage of development.)

We're also dealing with a small party without a huge number of officials. You rightly say that most parties are organised on a constituency basis - well, the 3 major parties certainly are, because they routinely contest parliamentary elections across the board. But compare the BNP, if you will, with Respect - with its single MP and handful of councillors. Do they have nationwide constituency organisation - I doubt it. The BNP is more extensive than Respect, but not all that much larger. So the national picture will still contain a fair number of lacunae.

'And where on earth is "Roger", the published identity of one of the BNP's Contact Units?'

Superb, isn't it? Maybe Roger is a peripatetic unit - less a location than an enthusiasic travelling activist; agreed though, he shouldn't be in this list. Again, one can only assume Roger's location was meant to have been filled in later, then forgotten.

'..odd that these paragons of our native culture have such difficulty with the language!'

Quite - reading Hannam's English is like watching a chimpanzee handle a piece of Sevres porcelain.

'Only two positions are recognised by the party (and appointed - or should I say anointed - from above) - an Organiser and a Fund Holder'

No need to over-dramatise. 'Anointed' is unnecessary; approved would do. Usually more or less anyone willing to do the job is approved - unless they're on some sort of blacklist, I suppose. Not unlike many other organisations or clubs.

'Loyal to the party's fuhrerprinzip approach, a local "uinit" (sic) is "accorded branch status at the discretion of the Group Development Department".'

It's accorded branch status when it reaches a certain size, But there are a number of criteria - hence this status is discretionary as opposed to automatic (which seems reasonable).

So - as 'anointed' is inaccurate and 'discretion' actually not in any way sinister, I don't really see the point of the 'fuhrerprinzip' reference - apart from lending this piece a bit of spurious Nazi flavouring.