British Freedom make themselves look stupid

Paul Weston (right)

At Christmas time the far right aided by some sections of the right wing tabloid press traditionally cook up a “Christmas is being banned “story that inevitably turns out to be untrue.

This year’s Yuletide award for stupidity goes to the miniscule BNP splinter British Freedom led by UKIP reject Paul Weston. British Freedom announced a link up with the thuggish EDL just last month with the possibility of EDL members standing as election candidates under the British Freedom umbrella.

It seems the victim of this year’s made up Christmas story is the much loved charity The British Red Cross with British Freedom announcing on their Facebook page “The British Red Cross has again banned overt reference to Christmas from its 430 fundraising shops to avoid “cultural insensitivity” Do not donate to them.”

However The British Red Cross are old hands at this having dealt with this kind of nonsense since The Daily Mail printed an incorrect story about them back in 2002. On their website The British Red Cross under an article entitled “How the Red Cross didn’t ban Christmas” quickly demolished the untrue story.

“To reiterate: this story is now nine years old. Many of our shops and offices are decked out in Christmas decorations, and our online Christmas gift shop is open for business. We have in no way “banned Christmas” nor have we discussed doing so.”

They continued “It’s true that you won’t find explicitly religious items or displays, relating to any faith, in any of our shops, at Christmas or any other time. But this certainly doesn’t amount to a ban on us celebrating or mentioning Christmas, or any other holiday. And it’s absolutely nothing to do with “offending non-Christians” or to serve any other sort of politically correct agenda.

The point is that the Red Cross is not a political or religious organisation. This neutrality is one of our fundamental principles and governs everything we do in the whole Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. We can’t let people in need down by compromising our neutrality. That is why we do not align ourselves with any particular political cause or religious creed anywhere in the world. And that’s why we don’t have any items of a religious nature in our shops.”

Red faced British Freedom administrators quickly deleted the posting from Facebook when it was pointed out to them that what they had claimed was nonsense and are now pretending the whole incident didn’t happen.

Good job we managed to get hold of this screen grab.

Hope not Hate

UKIP: the BNP in suits?

This article was submitted by one of our readers, Roddy Newman. We welcome any contributions from our supporters (as long as those contributions conform to the law and are in reasonably good taste). Please send your articles to us via email.

Many BNP voters are now turning to UKIP, because they do not like what they have heard about the BNP's fascism, and because they are unaware that leading UKIP figures themselveshave fascist links, which were discussed by then Labour MEP Richard Corbett in this article (PDF download) about UKIP. The fascist links include an unofficial pact between the BNP and UKIP which the BNP has now admitted to the existence of.

Richard Corbett's article also pointed out that the UKIP leadership refused to condemn a letter bomb campaign against MEP's from other parties, and said they could understand the reasons for the campaign.

Furthermore, since Corbett's 2004 article, UKIP MEP Geoffrey Bloom, who is a climate change denier, has praised the French Secret Service's 1985 terrorist bombing of the Greenpeace "Rainbow Warrior" ship, as this BBC News article reveals:

As leading UKIP figures have fascist links, and think terrorism is OK, it is clear that UKIP is not a normal democratic political party. In other Western European countries it would be viewed in the same light as their far-right parties in fact, as the BNP are so extreme by the standards of other Western European nations, that their far-right politicians refused to form a formal group with the BNP in the European Parliament, because they said they would be badly damaged in the eyes of their countries' voters if they did. For example, Belgium's Flemish Appeal was badly damaged after their then deputy leader questioned the size of the Holocaust.

By contrast, as Britain has, overall, by far the lowest quality newspapers in Western Europe, because so many British people prefer reading celebrity gossip to reading about news, Nick Griffin's past Holocaust denial has not been as big a political issue, and many BNP voters have as a result taken until recently to find out that the BNP is a fascist party which pretends not to be.

So, as many BNP voters are now turning to UKIP, anti-fascist activists ought to be aware that the fascism linked, pro-terrorism UKIP could become the main party of British fascism in the future, and that the far more fascism-linked, and far more pro-terrorism BNP could become a much smaller fringe party like today's NF.

I showed in this 2009 article, "The BNP and terrorism", that the BNP have more terrorist links than possibly any other fascist party on the planet, and showed in another 2009 article, that the BNP leader was an admirer of a now dead American fascist party leader who openly advocated killing all of the world's billions of non-white people and Jews, and machine-gunning feminists and anti-racists. Not even UKIP can compete with the BNP in the terrorism and fascism stakes.

Tory couple from Dudley quit party in row over 'racist' doll

These are the photos that caused two prospective Tory councillors to resign from the party

Bill and Star Etheridge are seen posing with a controversial golly doll. 41-year-old Mr Etheridge was due to stand for the Tories in the Dudley Council elections in May along with his wife Star, aged 39. But a Conservative Party disciplinary committee suspended the pair after a complaint from party volunteers. The couple have now resigned from the party and Mr Etheridge said he was joining UKIP instead.

Mr Etheridge said he posted the pictures on Facebook to promote a “healthy debate” about the toy after the couple bought one on a market stall. He and Star organise their local branch of The Campaign Against Political Correctness.

“We thought we’d post pictures of it as an interesting talking-point and to provoke a healthy debate,” said the dad-of-three. “We never said ‘bring back gollies’. I’m aware some people may be offended, but they’re offended on behalf of someone else – they’re do-gooders.”

Conservative disciplinary committee secretary Stephen Phillips wrote to the pair about their 30-day suspension on Friday. He said: “The committee is satisfied that the complaint raises serious issues that might bring the party into disrepute and/or that you may be guilty of conduct not compatible with membership of the Conservative Party.”

A Conservative Party spokesman said: “Following a complaint by members of the voluntary party in the area, two Conservative members have resigned from the party.”

Mr Etheridge added: “We do not intend to be silenced and will increase our campaigning against political correctness.”

And UKIP MEP Mike Nattrass said he would be welcomed into their party. He said: “Bill’s decision to join UKIP is yet another boost for the party and an endorsement of all the good work we have done here.”

Birmingham Mail

Might UKIP succeed where the BNP has failed?

By Dr Robert Ford of the University of Manchester and and Dr Matthew Goodwin of the University of Nottingham, co-editor of The New Extremism in 21st Century Britain. The authors would like to thank Joe Twyman at YouGov for assistance with the data.

The BNP’s attempt to become a ‘modernized’ radical right party has failed. The party is in turmoil, and Nick Griffin faces a growing grassroots rebellion. A disappointing general election, empty war chests and costly legal battles have left its foot soldiers demoralized and divided: some demand a re-launched (and Griffin-free) BNP; others have deserted to establish a rival party; and some are even calling for a merger with their arch rival, UKIP. Even Griffin concedes they are ‘sick and tired of losing’ and, in an attempt to quell the rebels, has announced he will step down by 2015.

To add to his problems, at the recent by-election in Oldham the party saw its support slump to 4.5% (down from 11% in 2001), even losing its deposit in an area it once described as “our territory”. The party was also pushed into fifth place by UKIP, a particularly hard pill for BNP activists to swallow. Despite a decade-long effort by Griffin to rehabilitate his party, upwards of 80% of Britons continue to express negative feelings toward the BNP. Put simply, the BNP will never be seen as an acceptable option by most voters. As one BNP blogger urged his fellow members, ‘it’s time to wake up’.

But if the BNP declines, the causes which propelled its rise – public anxiety about Islam and immigration and hostility to the political mainstream – remain in place. Since 2001, they have also been joined by a financial crisis, parliamentary expenses scandal and, more recently, seemingly ‘new’ issues such as ‘Muslim sex gangs’. These issues look set to remain salient. Will public concern over them find a new outlet if the BNP falls apart?
Analysts of British politics have long suspected (though never proven) that UKIP is the ‘second home’ for far right voters, and is seen by a larger portion of the electorate as a ‘polite alternative’ to the toxic BNP. Academics suggest that while both parties share a mutual hatred of each other, they are ‘part of the same phenomenon’, and recruit supporters who share a similar profile and are concerned about the same cluster of issues.

Nigel Farage rejects the ‘BNP in Blazers’ tag, but has recently ‘cautiously welcomed’ comparisons with the far more successful radical right model of the French National Front (FN), now led by Marine Le Pen. But is UKIP really all that different from the BNP, and could it join the successful radical right family?

As we show in our study, despite Farage’s protestations the reality is that both UKIP and the BNP are drawing on remarkably similar bases of support. Not only is UKIP well positioned to hoover up the BNP vote, but it is also well placed to attract a broad and relatively diverse coalition of voters, like those mobilised by radical right parties in Austria, France and the Netherlands.

UKIP draws its strongest support from middle-aged, financially insecure men who formerly identified with the Conservatives. While these voters are of course very hostile to the EU, UKIP is not simply a haven for Eurosceptics. Contrary to what many Conservatives might like to believe, UKIP is not a single-issue party. It is also successful attracting to its banner Britons who are hostile toward immigration, feel threatened by Islam, and disaffected with the mainstream parties.

Indeed, we find two very different kinds of UKIP supporters. On one side are ‘strategic defectors’, who vote UKIP at European elections, but then return to the Conservatives at domestic general elections where more is at stake. These voters tend to be more economically secure, more middle class and motivated mainly by their Euroscepticism. On the other side, however, are the ‘core loyalists’ who vote UKIP in Westminster elections as well as European Parliament polls. It is the ‘core loyalists’ who have most in common with BNP supporters: they are poorer, more working class and more dissatisfied with the main parties. This electorate resembles those voting for far more successful radical right parties elsewhere in Europe.

UKIP also has an important advantage over the BNP – it is not tainted by a violent, fascist past. Free of extremist baggage, it is able to appeal to groups of voters such as women who regard the BNP as unacceptably extreme. Evidence of UKIP’s broader appeal can already be seen: it won nearly twice as many votes as the BNP at the 2010 general election; and nearly three times as many votes at the 2009 European elections.

So what does all this mean for the Conservatives? It suggests UKIP has now emerged as a potent competitor on two very different fronts. On the one hand, UKIP is tapping into widespread Conservative scepticism about Europe to win over large numbers of Tory voters at European Parliament elections. But in Westminster elections, UKIP is also attracting a very different following. The party is becoming an outlet for the frustrations of voters who are angry about rising immigration, anxious over the presence of ‘threatening’ Muslim communities, and cynical about mainstream politics, but repelled by the BNP’s reputation for racism and fascism. For example, more than seven out of every ten UKIP voters in our sample agreed councils allow immigrants to jump the queue for social housing, believe immigration has not helped the economy, and do not trust their local MP. Also, almost two thirds think Islam poses a serious danger to Western civilization.

If UKIP chooses to embrace this electorate, its future looks bright: continued public concern over immigration, growing anxiety over settled Muslim communities; and continuing popular outrage over issues like bankers’ bonuses provide a rich array of domestic issues to capitalise upon. Clearly, UKIP is aware of the potential appeal of radical right messages: like the BNP, at the general election it advocated a halt on immigration (via a five year freeze), the ending of policies to promote multiculturalism and bans on the burka and niqab. It also invited the Dutch populist politician Geert Wilders over to show an anti-Islam film in the House of Lords.

UKIP has already demonstrated the electoral power of Euroscepticism in the last European Parliament elections, where it overtook Labour to secure second place. If the party chooses to focus on a broader populist agenda - embracing the concerns of voters buffeted by economic insecurity, alarmed by the challenges of immigration and Islam and hostile to a Westminster elite they see as complacent and out of touch - they could also prove a potent competitor to the mainstream parties in domestic elections.

The established parties ignore this challenge at the peril – in recent years populist right wing parties have pulled off dramatic victories across Europe, dramatically altering the political landscape in longstanding bastions of moderation such as the Netherlands and Sweden. One day soon, UKIP might pull off the same trick here.

Conservative Home Comment

Incompetents reign as BNP staggers into the new year

An influential far-right activist has called for union between the UK Independence Party and British National Party in an attempt to whitewash the BNP’s racism and nazi past by hiding behind its larger, anti-EU rival.

Eddy Butler, who was expelled from the BNP after trying to challenge Nick Griffin to a leadership election last summer but remains an important figure on the extreme right, said in a message for the new year that a party that united the UKIP, BNP and the various smaller groups “on the patriotic, nationalistic, ‘right-wing’, populist, non-politically correct, identity-related side of the spectrum” would “have over 30,000 members” and “instantly be a major force in British politics”.

He recognises, however, that “it would take compromise” and “putting aside preconceived ideas about each other” – a reference to the BNP’s violence and extremism and the image of the UKIP as “Tory types” – and that “jealous personalities”, the biggest of whom is Griffin, will not let it happen.

Butler believes such a union would benefit the UKIP as it “would give them relevance” between European elections. For the BNP “it would provide respectability and distance form a more violent and hard-line past”.

According to Butler only a “tiny minority” in the UKIP “hate everything to do with the BNP”. However a spokesman for the UKIP told Searchlight “[Unity] is not going to happen. We reject the whole concept completely out of hand”.

The BNP meanwhile continues to demonstrate its incompetence and dictatorial nature. When Butler appealed against his expulsion, which he considers was “irregular” under the terms of the party constitution, he was told an appeal tribunal would be arranged for January.

This has now been denied. Knowing that Butler probably had a strong case, Andy McBride, the BNP’s South East regional organiser, decided that Butler was not entitled to a tribunal because he was only a “probationary member” with less than two years’ membership, despite the party’s earlier acceptance that he had the required five years’ continuous membership to stand for the leadership!

The basis for the decision by McBride, whom Butler describes as “ineffective and semi-literate” – so no different from most other party officers – is that Butler was 18 days late in renewing his membership in 2009. However he retained the same membership number and renewal date.

Griffin law

“I can recall a time in history, in another country, during the last days of a (ahem) controversial regime, when all sorts of decrees were sent forth from ‘ze bunker’ pronouncing severe punishments on those who were deemed to have transgressed”, wrote Butler. “The last twitches of a dying organism.”

Commenting on the way Griffin and the BNP keep changing the rules to suit themselves, Butler continued: I think Mr McBride believes in Griffin Law – that parallel legal system, a bit like Sharia Law. It would seem that I am to be further punished by ‘political admin’ (as opposed to a Sharia court).”

Mark Walker, described as the BNP’s political administration officer, clearly comes from the same stable. Responding to a letter of resignation from the party from Chris Francis, Walker wrote: “Clearly you have very negative feelings towards the Party and our membership and this would, in any case, likely have resulted in actions leading to disciplinary proceedings. Best to jump before you were pushed.”

Francis had done no more than express the widespread view that the party is “a cult dedicated to Nick Griffin … The BNP has lost very many decent people over the last couple of years and there are very few decent people left in the party now. The party is now festering with **** & yes men and I for one am glad to be gone,” he added.

Another demoralised former activist is Roy Jones, who was the party’s North East Scotland organiser until he resigned last month over “King Nick and his rotten corrupt regime”. Among his complaints are Griffin’s waste of hundreds of thousands of pounds in dragging the party through the courts and the party’s inability to conduct a leadership action “without resorting to hatefull [sic] smear campaings [sic] against the challenger (Eddy Butler) and suspending /expelling anyone who supported a challenge (myself included)”.

Jones claims that the BNP in Scotland “has been wrecked by the Sycophantic Mentally unstable liar” Gary Raikes, the party’s Scotland regional organiser. Like Butler, Jones points out that the party has still not produced its 2009 accounts, which were due six months ago. On 31 December Griffin wrote on Twitter: “Just finished my report to go with 2009 accounts which auditor says are now virtually ready”.

As Butler commented: “This person is congratulating himself on almost having the 2009 accounts ready when they should have been handed in before 7th July”. If the national and regional accounts are submitted after 7 January 2011, the party will be liable to £2,500 in fines. The record delay follows several declarations by Griffin and the party’s succession of treasurers that all the party’s financial functions were being run in a professional way with the sort of controls one would find in a multinational company.

Griffin’s statement contrasts with Butler’s revelation that the party’s independent auditors, Silver and Co, were still trying to verify with branch treasurers that the bank and cash balances in their local records were the same as the figures provided by the regional treasurer. Butler claims “they are massively out” and local treasurers are refusing to confirm the figures.

Staff not paid

The accounts are unlikely to reveal the full extent of the BNP’s current dire financial straits as much of Griffin’s reckless spending on legal actions and employment tribunals has occurred since 31 December 2009. The BNP is reported to have closed most of its offices and not paid party staff for two months, apart from Patrick Harrington, Griffin’s comrade from his National Front political soldier days, who now works for the party while still heading a rival group.

Life members are calling for a refund as they did not receive their four free copies of the party’s Identity magazine, which it cannot afford to print. A bequest of £65,000 received in September in the will of a supporter who appeared to have no family and friends probably went straight to lawyers to cover the BNP’s huge legal bills. Unfortunately a further £109,000 was due to follow from the same source.

Last month the Electoral Commission pronounced the BNP guilty of breaching electoral legislation by “failing to keep accounting records sufficient to explain, with reasonable accuracy, the financial position of the party at the time”. The verdict followed a long investigation into the party’s 2008 accounts. However the BNP will suffer no penalty as the legislation, which has since been amended, did not allow for anything less than criminal proceedings against the treasurer at the time, who no longer holds the post.

Butler is calling for members not to fund Griffin by renewing, a turnaround from his previous position. Griffin is clearly feeling the pinch. At the party’s annual conference in December he admitted that the party had made mistakes and lost members. He appealed for them to return, claiming the party had moved on. Where the party has moved was revealed in Griffin’s speech at a dinner on the eve of the conference, in which he called for “increased militancy” against Islam. In attempt to revitalise the beleaguered party he promised it would “start acting as well as talking about protecting Britain”. The party is currently targeting a mosque planned for Bletchley.

The just over 100 people at the conference were also the first to see the BNP’s new logo, a heart-shaped cut-out from the Union flag. “This logo will illustrate exactly what this party is about,” said Griffin, incongruously describing it later as a “combination of innocence and love”. Others pointed out the similarities with a Conservative party emblem and Searchlight dubbed it the “broken heart”.

Some party members felt it was too soft and conflicted with Griffin’s call for street militancy. Griffin’s replied that the party still wanted to win elections and needed an image that would not “frighten the horses”.

© Searchlight Magazine 2011

BNP 'turning into Ukip'

The British National party (BNP) has become more "dangerous" by toning down its racist rhetoric, experts have warned.

Research analysing the party's manifestos published in the Political Quarterly journal shows that the BNP's emphasis since Nick Griffin became leader in 1999 has focused on protecting Britain's values and institutions, rather than a nationalism based on race. It suggests that Ukip's language has been mirrored by the BNP, especially on Europe, and that its anti-immigration stance has shifted from racial tensions towards broader social and economic problems.

"We are definitely not saying that the BNP is no longer an extreme right racist party," Daphne Halikiopoulou from the LSE's department of government commented. "Indeed its use of more inclusive rhetoric makes it more dangerous because it makes it more difficult to identify it as such."

The civic narrative developed by the BNP has led to mixed results for the party. It has won two seats in the European parliament but, following intense media coverage, lost all its councillors in Barking and Dagenham in May 2010.

Another researcher, Sofia Vasilopoulou, said Mr Griffin's reforms had had a noticeable impact on the far-right party's arguments, however.

"The BNP's post 1999 manifestos are characterised by a rhetoric shift," she explained. "Although race still figures, it is less prominent and no longer forms the premise of its nationalist agenda. Instead, the BNP has increasingly talked about its agenda using elements of British national identity which unite rather than divide, such as 'democracy', 'freedom', and 'liberty' - all values that the party has previously rejected as 'liberal sickness'."

politics.co.uk

UKIP Threaten To Sue BNP Over Nazi Link Row

BNP supporters in the Orsett council ward have been left high and dry, after the party axed its candidate in a row over his UKIP connections.

Mark O’ Nion caused a stir when pictures on his Facebook page appeared to show him in a Nazi salute pose - and when it was revealed his aunt was UKIP candidate for the ward Marie Andrews. That led to accusations of him being a UKIP mole, planted to discredit the BNP and sway potential voters. The matter was further complicated when the party tried to take Mr O'Nion off the candidates' list, but the withdrawal deadline had passed, meaning he remains the official BNP candidate at the election.

BNP parliamentary candidate for Thurrock, Emma Colgate, is now urging anyone in Orsett who wanted to vote BNP in the local elections to vote for East Thurrock candidate Chris Roberts in the general election. She said: “We've taken all the steps that we can. We took action as soon as we knew, but we missed the cut off point to withdraw the candidate. Its disappointing because we had other people we could have put there. We had a selection process this year which was a first for us.”

UKIP’s Kerry Smith, who is the prospective Parliamentary candidate for East Thurrock, confirmed that Marie Andrews and Mark O'Nion are related, but was furious about the claims, saying his party is considering taking legal action over the matter. He said: “This is a really deplorable, petty and sick attack by the BNP to cover up their own errors in selecting candidates. I am calling on the BNP to immediately apologise to my candidate. Marie is quite upset with the bully boy tactics. We are now looking into suing the BNP.”

James Bethell, from the “Nothing British about the BNP” campaign group, called for Mr O'Nion to be sacked before the UKIP revelations after seeing the Facebook pictures. He said: “If mainstream candidates can be sacked for saying revolting things about the Queen or joking that they prefer bananas harvested by slaves, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect Nick Griffin to fire a BNP candidate with explicit Nazi sympathies.”

Thurrock Gazette

UKIP election candidate in racism row

A UKIP parliamentary candidate has been reinstated after posting racist remarks on a social care website

Paul Wiffen, who is campaigning to be MP for Ilford South in east London, responded to a criticism of the party on the Community Care site. The remarks focused on Muslims, Romanian Gypsies and African and Caribbean communities. UKIP said he had been suspended but, following his apology and an inquiry, he was allowed back into the party.

The comment was made in response to a post by Community Care's Outside Left blogger on asylum. Mr Wiffen, chair of UKIP London, said: "You left-wing scum are all the same, wanting to hand our birthright to Romanian gypsies who beat their wives and children into begging and stealing money they can gamble with, Muslim nutters who want to kill us and put us under medieval Sharia law, the same Africans who sold their Afro-Caribbean brothers into a slavery that Britain was first to abolish (but you still want to apologize for!)"

He has since apologised saying: "I was very surprised to see such a party political piece on a website called 'Community Care', and when I read the lies about UKIP being a racist party, I just saw red, and fired off an angry email. I am truly sorry to anyone offended by some of the language I used."

A spokesman for UKIP said: "UKIP is a party of real people, not career politicians. Real people sometimes make mistakes, and when they do, they should apologise. Both UKIP and Mr Wiffen have apologised for any offence caused."

Mike Gapes, Labour MP for Ilford South, said: "There is an unpleasant whiff about Mr Wiffen."

Toby Boutle, the Conservative candidate for the area, said if Mr Wiffen 's comments are correct then "it says a lot about UKIP that someone like this is their regional chairman in London".

Lib Dem candidate Anood Al-Samerai said: "I would not wish to see this man standing in Ilford South."

BBC

English Teabaggers: The EDL vs “COMMUNISM!!!!”

A couple of left-wing websites have noted the English Defence League’s new target: union power and Communism. A couple of days ago the EDL’s site told us that

The EDL know that unions have a part to play to protect workers’ rights, to ensure that employees are treated fairly in the workplace. However it would seem that these unions have become more powerful, more influential and more militant in the political sphere, this is where vested interests infringe upon a democratic political platform, so much so that democracy seems to be ebbing away right before our eyes and its replacement………COMMUNISM!!!!

Great Britain doesn’t do Communism, it never has, yet Communists are afforded more influence and more power as the Labour party look to fund its upcoming election campaign.

Lenin’s Tomb and Barrykade suggest that this is the organisation’s “true colours”, and this is shows that the EDL has an agenda beyond simply opposing “Islamic extremism” – attention is drawn to the fact that the EDL has a millionaire businessman sugar-daddy.

There are, though, a couple of other factors: It’s clear that the EDL would rather people support parties such as UKIP or the English Democrats over mainstream parties, and Labour’s association with the Unite union is a topical knocking-point. Perhaps we are also seeing the importing of rhetoric from the USA, where the crudest 1950s-style anti-Communist posturing has enjoyed a renewed lease of life over the past year or so. I recently noted Pamela Geller’s reference to Obama as the “mad Commie clown”, and this kind of thing is now commonplace among the “teabaggers” – Geller has written posts commending the EDL to American conservatives, and the EDL in turn has directed traffic to her site.

More widely, Communist groups have shown up at Unite Against Fascism anti-EDL events waving around hammer-and-sickle iconography, and the Trotskyist SWP looms large within the UAF. Naturally, just as the UAF denounces the EDL of having semi-hidden far-right links (a subject I have also written on), so the EDL will point to the UAF’s far-left links, as a matter of tit-for-tat. There are also, of course, actual links between far-left groups and Islamists.

Meanwhile, EDL members are also planning a rally on a “Not Compatible with Britain” theme, attacking the BNP along with neo-Nazis and Communists. Anarchists don’t get off lightly, either…

Bartholomew's Notes on Religion

BNP barred from election debate

The British National Party has sensationally been barred from attending an election debate this evening

A row had broken out locally after Hastings MP Michael Foster refused to share the stage with his BNP rival Nick Prince at the hustings at the Crown House, Marina, St Leonards. This led to Tory hopeful Amber Rudd and Lib Dem candidate Nick Perry also pulling out of the event. This would have left just representatives of the BNP, United Kingdon Independence Party and the English Democrats.

However, the organiser of the event confirmed to the Observer this afternoon that the BNP candidate had had his invitation taken away. Brett McLean arranged the debate in his role as head of the local Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) and described Mr Foster's stance as "a nail in the coffin for democracy".

However, he has been left facing an embarrassing climb-down after the national heads of the FSB ordered him to exclude the far-right party. He explained to the Observer: "I was told that the FSB wants nothing at all to do with the British National Party."

The Observer was unable to contact Mr Foster to ask whether he would now reconsider appearing. However, the MP had previously said he would turn up to the hustings - which gets underway at 6pm - and leave if the BNP were present.

Anti-fascists have also planned a series of demonstrations outside the venue and everyone going in will have to agree to be searched.

Bexhill Observer

Extreme right on the march in Europe's most tolerant nation

Geert Wilders speaks to supporters in Almere, where his
far-right Freedom Party was declared the surprise winner in local elections

Geert Wilders triumphs in Netherlands local elections

The anti-Islamist party led by Dutch firebrand Geert Wilders has triumphed in municipal polls in The Netherlands, opening the way for a political breakthrough for the far-right in general elections in June. Mr Wilders, known for his blond mane and due in London today to show his anti-Islam film in the House of Lords at the invitation of a Ukip peer, has campaigned for an immediate freeze on immigration and a ban on the wearing of Muslim headscarves in public. His Freedom Party was declared the surprise winner yesterday in Almere, a city just east of Amsterdam with a large immigrant population. It came second in The Hague, the only two cities where it chose to participate in the polls.

Wednesday's vote, in which the two main parties in the ruling coalition, the Labour Party (PvdA) and the Christian Democrats (CDA), suffered heavy losses, was the first electoral test since Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende's government collapsed last month.

Tensions between the two sides and the recession played into Wilders' hands, while he refused to depart from his uncompromising stance on Muslim immigration or engage in mainstream political debates. If the local results were to translate nationally on 9 June, 46-year-old Wilders, who faces criminal charges for inciting hatred, could emerge as a kingmaker. An opinion poll yesterday also showed that the Freedom Party could take most seats in the national parliament in June.

Many Muslim residents in Almere were deeply shaken by the outcome, which gave the Freedom Party 21.6 per cent of votes. "I will stand here until my toes freeze," said Ayse Bayrak-de Jager, a Muslim student taking part in a silent protest outside the town hall. Her friend, Zaitoon Shah, added: "It's just appalling to think that I might not to be able to go to the library soon."

Kadriye Kacar, a 35-year-old IT student of Turkish origin, said: "I don't normally wear a headscarf but I decided to today as a sign of protest. Others are doing the same, until Wilders leaves. It's terrible. People are looking at us differently today, as if to say 'we won and you're going to leave'."

Celebrating in a rowdy local café late on Wednesday, a beaming Wilders told the city's Muslims not to be afraid "as long as they don't break the law", but he insisted that his party would refuse to go into talks with any parties that did not support his views. "We've always maintained that it would be unthinkable for us to work with them. We can talk about a number of policy issues like education and finance, but upholding the basic rights of all the people living here is non-negotiable," said Labour councillor Alphons Muurlink.

Many shoppers at the local market told Dutch television they felt ashamed for their city. "It's a big black stain, I don't even want to talk about it," said one elderly woman. The Dutch Muslim Party, which failed to gain any seats, said it was "a sad day" for the country. Leader Henny Kreeft said Wilders had traded on "baseless fears".

The collapse of the Dutch government was triggered by a deadlock over whether to keep some Dutch soldiers in Afghanistan after December, when a parliament decision to withdraw from the country comes into effect. The debacle was the last in a series of crises to have plagued the coalition, with the Christian Democrats locking horns with their Labour colleagues over retirement age and budget reform.

Independent

BNP row reignites over reply to party leaders' TV debates

The major broadcasters face anger after deciding to invite Nick Griffin, the British National Party leader, to reply to the televised Prime Ministerial debates during the general election campaign

The BBC, ITV and Sky this week reached agreement on the format of the three encounters between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. They have also agreed to give three other parties with substantial electoral support – the Green Party, the UK Independence Party and the BNP – the opportunity to respond.

The decision threatens a rerun of the protests faced by BBC after Mr Griffin appeared on BBC1’s Question Time last October.

Tonight the corporation confirmed it would give him a fresh platform immediately after the end of the BBC-hosted debate between the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem leaders. He will be invited, along with Caroline Lucas of the Greens and Nigel Farage of UKIP, to give interviews on BBC1’s News at Ten and BBC2’s Newsnight, as well as on Radio 4’s Today programme the following morning. ITV said it would also give a platform to the BNP leader, and Sky looks certain to follow suit.

A spokesman for BBC News said the decision was aimed at ensuring that “due impartiality is achieved in line with its election guidelines”. The BBC argues it is legally required to give airtime to the far-Right party because of the electoral support it attracted during the European elections, when it won two seats in the European Parliament.

ITV said: “We will be ensuring that we include an appropriately wide range of views throughout our election coverage.”

But a spokesman for Searchlight, the anti-fascist organisation, said: “The BNP are being allowed to hijack the election debates.”

The BNP will also be entitled to at least one party political broadcast on each channel because of the large number of candidates it is fielding. Mr Griffin’s appearance on Question Time attracted 7.9 million viewers, almost three times its usual audience. Police mounted a major security operation outside Television Centre while Mr Griffin was inside, but failed to prevent demonstrators briefly getting into the building.

Both UKIP and the Green Party said yesterday they were unhappy at not being invited to participate in the main debates between the leaders. Mr Farage said: “We think the way it has been set up is unfair. We came second across the UK in the European elections last year.”

A spokesman for the Green Party said: “We would have thought the broadcasters would recognise the Green Party has a strong claim to being part of the main debate.”

The BBC is to hold separate party leader election debates in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it has also confirmed. But in a joint statement the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cmyru yesterday denounced the “unfair treatment of Welsh and Scottish licence fee payers who are being denied the opportunity by the public broadcaster to hear from their respective national parties in these set-piece leaders’ debates.”

Independent

BNP's Nick Griffin Back On The Beeb

Griffin on Question Time last year

British National Party leader Nick Griffin is set to return to the BBC following his controversial appearance on Question Time last year. The politician will appear as part of the broadcaster's coverage of the general election this spring.

The corporation yesterday announced plans to follow the TV debate between major party leaders Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg with a 'minor parties debate'.

In a statement published on the BBC website, chief political advisor Ric Bailey said: "There will be arrangements in the programming around the BBC debate, a week before polling day, to ensure other parties which have demonstrated they have some electoral support - UKIP, the Green Party and the BNP - will have their say."

Though ITV and Sky will also air live debates, it has not yet been announced whether they will also make room in their schedules for a similar arrangement. Griffin's deputy Simon Darby also revealed the BBC's plan to feature the far right group in an edition of Panorama in the next few months.

But, while some see the move as a triumph, others are angry. A spokesman for anti-facist group Searchlight condemned the plan, saying: "These are supposed to be serious debates allowing people to make an informed choice. Nick Griffin has no place there."

Sky TV

Blond bombshell Geert Wilders returns to Britain, looking for a fight

Geert Wilders - divisive, racist, Islamophobic and over-styled

Boyish, topped with a bouffant mane of bleached blond hair, cheerful and cherubic, Geert Wilders is the unlikely new face of the far Right in Europe. But appearances are deceptive. The leader of the Dutch anti-immigration Freedom Party has emerged as one of the most divisive politicians in Europe, the purveyor of a virulent brand of anti-Islamic rhetoric that calls for a tax on Islamic headscarves and a ban on the Koran, which he likens to Mein Kampf.

Mr Wilders is facing trial in a Dutch court for “inciting hatred”. Last year he was banned from Britain and turned away at Heathrow when he arrived here planning to show his short film, an incendiary anti-Islamic diatribe that the Dutch Prime Minister described as serving “no purpose other than to offend”.

On Friday, after successfully appealing against the Home Office ban, Mr Wilders will return to Britain at the invitation of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) to show his controversial film to an invited audience at the House of Lords. The English Defence League is expected to demonstrate in his support and Muslim groups are all but certain to mount protests.

To his enemies, the 46-year-old Dutchman is an old-fashioned racist demagogue in a new suit; a bottle-blond bigot. To his growing ranks of supporters he is a champion of free speech, a bulwark against what he calls “the Islamic invasion of Holland”. He may be dismissed by some as a crank but he is an increasingly powerful and popular one. On February 20 the Dutch centrist coalition Government collapsed, deeply divided over keeping troops in Afghanistan, paving the way for a general election in June in which the Freedom Party is expected to do extremely well. Polls suggest that the party will triple its tally of seats, becoming at least the second-biggest parliamentary party and quite possibly the overall winner. Mr Wilders is likely to be a key player in any coalition, with a profound impact on the political agenda.

Nicknamed “Mozart” on account of a platinum hairdo that looks strikingly like an 18th-century wig, Mr Wilders has played on the discords in Dutch society with virtuoso skill. As in Britain, many Dutch voters are alarmed by the scale of immigration, battered by the global economic crisis, culturally anxious and increasingly receptive to his grim warnings about a “tsunami of Islamification”.

The political heir to Pim Fortuyn, the Dutch populist politician who called for a halt to Muslim immigration and who was murdered in the 2002 election campaign, Mr Wilders has portrayed himself as the only politician in his country brave enough to stand up to militant Islam, a threat that he has compared to Nazism. “A century ago there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today there are about one million. Where will it end? We are heading for the end of European civilisation,” he predicts. Promising strict limits on immigration, he has also called for a “head-rag tax” of €1,000 (£922) a year on Muslim women wearing headscarves.

In 2008 he released a 15-minute film entitled Fitna (the Arabic word for “strife”) which provoked outrage across the Muslim world: it opens with an image of the Koran, followed by footage of terrorist attacks and a litany of stonings, beheadings, honour killings, homophobia and child marriages. It ends, predictably, with the Danish cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad that sparked fury in 2006. Al-Qaeda is believed to have ordered the killing of Mr Wilders after the film was released. Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, has described the Dutch politician as “offensively anti-Islamic”. His most incendiary remarks are aimed at the Koran, which he calls a fascist book. “The Koran incites to hatred and calls for murder and mayhem,” Mr Wilders told the Dutch Parliament. “It is an absolute necessity that the Koran be banned for the defence and reinforcement of our civilisation and our constitutional state.”

In January a Dutch court ordered the public prosecutor to try Mr Wilders on charges of fomenting hatred and discrimination. Mr Wilders indicated that he would call witnesses in order to prove Koran-inspired violence, including Mohammed Bouyeri, the man convicted of murdering the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh in 2004.

Although he faces 16 months in prison if convicted, the trial represents a political goldmine for Mr Wilders and helps to explain his recent rise in opinion polls. If he is convicted he will paint himself as martyr to political correctness; if he is acquitted he will claim vindication. The trial has been suspended until after the election.

Inadvertently, Britain also did much to boost his standing in February last year by banning him from entering the country as an “undesirable person”, citing EU laws enabling member states to exclude someone whose presence could threaten public security. Mr Wilders loudly condemned Gordon Brown as “the biggest coward in Europe” and some 84 per cent of Dutch voters objected to the way that Mr Wilders had been ejected by Britain. The ban was later overturned by an asylum and immigration tribunal. On Friday, at the invitation of the UKIP leader Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Baroness Cox of Queensbury, he will show Fitna to MPs, peers and guests before giving a press conference at Westminster.

“The issue of militant Islam is the greatest issue facing our Judeo-Christian culture,” Lord Pearson said. “I don’t agree that the Koran should be banned but we want it discussed ... mild Muslims should stand up and debate their militant co-religionists.”

Mr Wilders has sought to distance himself and his party from the traditional standard-bearers of the extreme Right in Europe, such as Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front in France and the late Jörg Haider of the Freedom Party in Austria. He has made no contact with the BNP. “My allies are not Le Pen and Haider,” he says. “I’m very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups.” His prime political role models are said to be Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill.

The son of a printer, Mr Wilders was raised Roman Catholic but is now an atheist. He worked in a Dutch social insurance agency before becoming a speechwriter and then MP for the liberal People’s Party, which he left in 2004 to form his own party. As a prime terrorist target he lives under 24-hour police guard, changing his location nightly. He is seldom seen in public and gives few interviews. Even contact with his wife, a Dutch-Hungarian former diplomat, is limited by security concerns, This way of life, under constant threat, is “a situation I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy”, he once remarked.

“They are trying to shoot him all the time,” says Lord Pearson, noting that Mr Wilders will be coming to Britain with five state-hired Dutch bodyguards. “He has a really, really tough existence.”

Mr Wilders opposes expansion of the EU, most particularly Turkish membership, and Dutch military deployment in Afghanistan, but the core of his message lies in an appeal to defend traditional Dutch culture against perceived encroachment by Islam. “Islam is the Trojan Horse in Europe,” he told the Dutch Parliament. “Stop all immigration from Muslim countries, ban all building of new mosques, close all Islamic schools, ban burkas and the Koran ... Stop Islamification. Enough is enough!”

Some polls suggest that after the June elections Mr Wilders may lead the biggest single parliamentary party, raising the prospect that a former fringe provincial politician with extreme views and peculiar hair could end up leading the country. “At some point it’s going to happen and then it will be a big honour to fulfil the post of prime minister,” he says. If that comes to pass it will mark both the triumph of a new, more subtle brand of right-wing politics in Europe, and the final demise of the stereotyped image of the Netherlands as a nation of bland liberal views and easygoing tolerance.

Itinerary

9am Geert Wilders will arrive at Heathrow, his second visit to Britain since overturning a ban by the former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. He declared his trip in October last year “a victory for free speech”

11am Screening of his film Fitna in a committee room of the House of Lords. The 17-minute film, which has been shown in the US Capitol, presents verses from the Koran alongside footage of terrorist attacks. The screening has been organised by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, leader of UKIP, and Baroness Cox, a former Conservative peer

12.30pm Press conference near Parliament. UKIP organisers are expecting protests

1pm The far-Right group the English Defence League plans a demonstration to welcome Mr Wilders to Britain. A UKIP source said: “That is what horrifies me more than anything else. Bring protective clothing.”

Times Online

Emergency protest this Friday

Protest this Friday 5th March, 12pm at House of Lords, Westminster.

UAF demo against the rally called by the EDL to greet and support Gert Wilders, the Islamaphobic Dutch MP. Wilders has been invted to the House of Lords by Malcolm Everard MacLaren Pearson, Leader of UKIP, to show his racist film Fitna.

Wilders was banned from coming to the UK before due to his racist remarks. He has described the Netherlands as facing a “tsunami of Islamification” – the Netherlands Musilim population is 6%. Also, he has said that a “head rag tax” should be issued on Muslim women who wear headscarves.

Protest against this racist coming to whip up race hatred and bolster the BNP.

New survey shows BBC flouted its own election guidelines in 2009 EU elections

An analysis being published today by the Jury Team, one of the political parties in the newly formed Alliance for Democracy, shows that in last summer’s European elections the BBC flouted its own guidelines for impartiality.

The political parties UKIP and the BNP had much more coverage than the BBC Trust had decided they should have as individual producers sought extra ratings by featuring those parties. As a result of the extra BBC coverage, UKIP won an additional MEP seat and the BNP won two MEP seats for the first time.

The BBC Trust decided at its 15th April 2009 meeting to give the same coverage to UKIP as it would to the three main traditional parties (Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats) because UKIP had done well in the 2004 EU elections even though by early 2009 it had dropped way back in popularity. However an analysis for the Jury Team by Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS), the major market research agency, shows that this is not what happened. TNS analysed the total number of items broadcast on Radio 4, BBC1 and BBC2 over the election period 28th April to 6th June 2009. This shows that UKIP was featured 58 times whereas the Conservatives only had 50 and 45 mentions respectively and the Liberal Democrats less than half as much as UKIP with 28 mentions, a complete distortion of the BBC policy of equal treatment for these four parties.

At the same meeting the BBC Trust agreed to give some national coverage to the Green Party but none to the BNP. However subsequently Helen Boaden, Head of BBC News, told her staff to give as much coverage to the BNP as to the Green Party. In fact the BNP got 38 mentions, more than the 33 of the Green Party and the 28 of the Liberal Democrats.

The Jury Team is committed to changing the way that the BBC decides on election coverage which is mainly on the basis of the results in the previous equivalent election. Sir Paul Judge, Founder of the Jury Team, said:

“By using mainly the results of the last election to decide on coverage the BBC stultifies our political system and entrenches the status quo, not living up to the BBC’s Charter requirement of innovation. People are fed up with the existing political parties. People want to vote for ‘none of the above’. In the 2009 EU elections, two thirds of the electorate did not vote. In the last general election in 2005, 40% of the electorate did not vote but the BBC ignored those licence payers in its election coverage. The BBC should be giving much more coverage to new political parties and ideas.”

By mainly basing election coverage decisions on what happened at the previous election the BBC is failing to take into account:

• the increasing volatility of the electorate
• the fact that the largest party at a general election is the Abstainers and the BBC must strive to find candidates and parties who can represent that two-fifths of the electorate
• the latest polling evidence
• the formation of new political parties and movements

The Jury Team policy is that it is for Parliament to decide how parties may be formed and people may validly be nominated as candidates for elections. Sir Paul added:

“The BBC’s impartiality requires that it treats all candidates the same and should give news coverage to all parties predominantly on the basis of the number of candidates they are putting forward rather than on the basis of previous elections. It is essential that the BBC does give more publicity to new parties in order to help to break the stultifying stranglehold of the current political system.

The BBC must consult widely about their election guidelines as it is quite clear that the decisions made about coverage can affect the result of the election. These decisions must no longer be made in private by the BBC Trust or, even worse, by an individual executive. The BBC also needs better to monitor its election coverage to ascertain what actually happens. It is quite clear from the analysis above by TNS that the coverage policies were not translated into actual coverage. The BBC needs to take its responsibilities for democracy more seriously.”

This need to publicise all strands of opinion on an equal basis was set out in a letter to The Times from David Jordan, BBC Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, who wrote in August 2009:

“Our job is to find the facts, test a wide range of opinion fairly and rigorously and let the audience, armed with the best assessment of the evidence we can provide, make up its own mind.”

The Jury Team is working to persuade the BBC to implement this clear policy in its political coverage.

PRWeb

BNP admits lying to raise money

The British National Party’s deputy leader has admitted that the party lies to gain financial advantage

A document filed with the Electoral Commission showed that the BNP exaggerated its spending during the European election, in which it gained two seats.

Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, has often said the party spent more than £500,000 on the campaign, especially when asking his members and supporters for more money. But figures released by the Electoral Commission this week show that the fascist party spent just £282,843, only £54,000 more than it did during 2004.

Simon Darby, Griffin’s deputy, told a reporter from The Times that the party needed to exaggerate because “if we had said we wanted to spend 10p, it wouldn’t do us any good … there’s a bit of hyperbole with politics”. He refused to comment further on the discrepancy, saying that it was not a “worthy question”.

For “hyperbole” read “lie”.

During the European election campaign the party claimed to have met its fundraising target of £390,000. An email on 22 May, two weeks before polling day, announced that the party had only £17,495 still to go. There was also a thermometer-style graphic on the party’s website, which eventually reached the top after unsteady progress. Those who gave in response to the numerous calls for donations will be wondering whether these figures were another lie or, if true, what Griffin did with the rest of the money.

One clue may be the rumour, currently doing the rounds on fascist and anti-fascist forums, that the BNP paid “£336,208 in the first 11 months of 2009 to three Dowson controlled entities”.

We have no way of judging the truth of this figure, to which only a handful of people in the BNP or around Jim Dowson, would have access, but we have long maintained that Dowson, a militant anti-abortion campaigner with a string of criminal convictions, who provides management and fundraising services to the BNP, has “bought” the party. It is Dowson who runs the BNP’s main call centre in Belfast, owns the “truth truck” advertising lorry, which Griffin regularly lies that the BNP has “bought and paid for”, and arranged the printing of the party’s 28 million European election leaflets last year.

Darby, probably realising that his anger at being asked probing questions by the Times journalist, whom Searchlight knows to be highly professional, had led him to speak unwisely, later claimed, amid a string of insults, that she had “twisted and distorted” his words. He and Griffin now refuse to speak to her.

Meanwhile the BNP has tried to divert attention from the lie by claiming that it ran a more efficient campaign than the four bigger parties in terms of amount spent per vote received. Its £282,843 equated to 29p per vote, compared to 51p for the UK Independence Party and higher amounts for the three main parties. Naturally the party failed to explain why it had claimed spending of £500,000, which would have been similar to the UKIP’s cost per vote. And it was no surprise that supporters commenting on the website article also avoided the awkward question and had nothing but praise for the party.

Nor has anyone on the BNP website expressed any concern that the party’s latest accounts, covering 2008, do not comply with the requirements of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as the party did not maintain adequate financial records. The BNP’s former treasurer may yet face prosecution for this.

HOPE not hate

Grim polling news for the BNP...how sad, how very sad

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

A major opinion poll by Ipsos MORI was published at the weekend. Polls, of course, need to be treated with caution, and it's never wise to read too much into a single set of figures, but MORI is a reputable pollster and there is some interesting information to be found - especially in the detailed figures. And the news is pretty grim for the BNP!

The base polling figures for the minor parties run UKIP 4%, Greens 3% and BNP 2%. Of course, when you get down to figures like this there is a significant margin of error. The number of people responding is low, and the risk of sampling error is high, but the basic message is simple. None of these parties have any sort of widespread, national support in the context of a general election.

Regional breakdowns are even more subject to sampling error, since the numbers involved are smaller still. For the BNP their 'best' region is the Midlands (4%), with 1% recorded in the South and the North. Support shown in London was so low that it failed to register - technically it was 0%, though obviously that doesn't mean that nobody will vote BNP in London at the general election. But what it does suggest is that, in the context of a general election, the BNP will struggle to poll above 2-3% across London as a whole. It certainly isn't encouraging news, for example, if you were a prominent BNP member who had decided to look for a London seat in which to stand ... thinking perhaps that the party's best chance was in that area ...

MORI also breaks down responses by age group. The BNP polls 4% in the 18-34 age group, 2% among the 35-54 age group. For over-55s their share is less than 1%. Their apologists might claim this as evidence that the BNP was "the party of the future", but there are two flaws to such an argument.

Firstly, the under-35s are far less likely to turn out to vote; turnout is highest among over-55s, the very group where BNP support is weakest. Secondly party loyalty is weakest among young voters; strongest in older voters. So the BNP is strongest among voters who are less likely to vote, and most likely to change their minds and perhaps drift away. The BNP is weakest among voters who are most likely to vote, and who are less likely to switch (e.g. to the BNP).

There are some further interesting findings:

• Social Group : BNP support is 1% in Social Groups A, B and C1 - professional, managerial and skilled; 3% in Social Groups C2, D and E - unskilled, unemployed, economically inactive.
• Housing Type: In social rented housing BNP support reaches 5%; it's 3% in the private rented sector, 1% in owner-occupation.

There is no categorisation for educational achievement, but there is a breakdown by newspaper readership. I've not noticed such a breakdown previously and it's worth listing in full:

• Amongst tabloid readers: Con 41%, Lab 34%, Lib Dem 14%, UKIP 5%, Green 3%, BNP 2%.
• Amongst broadsheet readers: Con 42%, Lib Dem 25%, Lab 24%, Green 4%, UKIP 3%, BNP 0%.

Yes, that's correct. They couldn't find a single BNP supporter who read a broadsheet newspaper. Are we surprised? No.

So, to summarise (with tongue firmly in cheek!). For success the BNP needs a constituency in the Midlands; with a high proportion of under-35s; who live in social rented housing; are in social groups C2, D and E; and only read tabloid newspapers. And even there they would only just climb above 5%!

Seriously, there will be areas where the above demographic combines with one or more of the following - an active local BNP group; incompetence/ idleness in the mainstream parties; a particular local issue which benefits the BNP. And where that happens, on a very local basis, the BNP will poll well above their national levels.

None of this polling means that we can relax, or that we can ignore the danger of BNP progress at the general election. But what it does mean is that despite the election of two MEPs, despite Question Time, despite all the boasting, despite the lies and distortions in the popular press playing to the BNP agenda; despite all this the BNP have failed to make any significant progress in winning the hearts, minds and - especially - votes of the vast majority of the British people.

Climate change denial is the new article of faith for the far right

Despite a complete lack of evidence, the leaked emails hysteria has encouraged more deniers to emerge from the shadows

It is now 12 days since the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia first appeared online, and the propaganda machine for the climate change denial lobby is in overdrive.

The University of East Anglia has rightly announced an independent investigation into the hacking episode. It is essential that the investigation examines, thoroughly and transparently, the substance of the email messages and establishes whether there has been any wrongdoing. From what I have seen, there is no evidence of research misconduct, but the only way to clear the air now is through an investigation.

Some people have already, and predictably, taken on the role of judge, jury and executioner, and have called for Phil Jones, the director of the unit, to resign. Yesterday Jones announced he would be temporarily standing down while an inquiry is carried out. But such a hysterical witch hunt is a sign of desperation rather than justice.

Despite nearly two weeks of frantic brandishing of the "smoking gun", there is still no evidence of the alleged bullets that would constitute an overturning of 200 years of climate research. The greenhouse effect still exists and the Earth is still warming. Nevertheless, the denial lobby – and it is denial rather than scepticism because they reject all of the evidence they don't like and embrace any alternative theory no matter how flaky – is claiming victory. And to some extent they have succeeded – by confusing the public and perhaps reducing public pressure on politicians to reach a strong and effective agreement at Copenhagen climate talks this month.

They have been aided in their campaign of disinformation by some feeble media reporting. Take the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a lobby group launched on 23 November, a few days after the stolen emails first appeared on the web. The chairman of its board of trustees, Nigel Lawson, promoted his new group by listing alleged misdeeds by the Climatic Research Unit and calling for a public inquiry by a high court judge.

What Lawson neglected to mention and which no journalist sought to quiz him about was a graph featuring prominently at the top of every page on the foundation's website, using data published by the Climatic Research Unit and the Met Office's Hadley Centre. Nor did he reveal that the foundation had "hidden" the temperature record prior to 2001, so that visitors could not tell that eight of the 10 warmest years since the instrumental record began in the 19th century have occurred since 2000. But most damagingly of all, nobody reported that the temperature data in the graph had been inaccurately misrepresented, with 2003 wrongly appearing to be warmer than 2005, and 2006 and 2007 erroneously appearing warmer than 2004.

Who knows, maybe the "sceptics" will be evenhanded now and call for a public inquiry into the data on the foundation's website. But don't hold your breath.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the hysterical atmosphere created by the emails has encouraged more of the denial lobby to emerge from the shadows. The British National party leader, Nick Griffin, gave a speech in which he claimed that climate change was a leftwing conspiracy, in much the same way as Lord Christopher Monckton has in his recent speeches in the United States. Monckton and Prof Ian Plimer then helped the UK Independence party to launch its own declaration of climate change denial this week. Suddenly climate change denial has become a new article of faith among the far right.

Who knows where this will end. The denial lobby is determined to make this story drag on for as long as possible, and some are even claiming that it contributed to the failure of Australian climate change legislation this week and the ousting of the opposition leader. But when is all is said and done, the climate will still be changing and the risks will be mounting.

• Bob Ward is the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Guardian

A long view - July to October

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

In among all the hype and hoopla following the appearance of some bloke from the BNP on some late-night television programme, I thought it would be interesting to review BNP performance over the past few months, from the beginning of July (as the effects of the Euro elections started to ease off) to the end of October.

During that period there were no fewer than 94 local authority byelections; the BNP fought 26 (28%). There is some evidence that their ability to field candidates has weakened. In July they fought eight seats out of twenty-three (35%); in August 2/9 (22%); September 8/24 (33%); October 8/38 (21%). Perhaps eight is their magic number above which they cannot climb!

Seventeen of the 94 wards had seen a BNP candidate at a recent previous election. No fewer than seven of these were abandoned at the byelection, a very significant feature, and which underlines one of the party's greatest weaknesses - its inability to maintain activist interest and commitment. In three of these wards they had previously polled in excess of 14% of the vote, so it's not just a case of walking away from hopeless areas.

There are therefore ten seats in which a comparison can be made with their performance in (normally) the preceding election. In nine of these their vote share fell. The only exception was the rather unusual Boston byelection on 15th October where their vote share leapt from 20.6% in June to 37.7% in October. They may well have benefitted from the unusual circumstances of the vacancy, and the withdrawal of UKIP and a local Independent Group from the fray (who had taken 15.6% in June), but it still represented a good night for the BNP and a worryingly close result for the rest of us (they finished just 16 votes adrift of the victorious Conservative candidate).

That, however, was the only good news for the BNP. In every other contest their share of the vote fell. I have illustrated this by listing the percentage of vote share retained (PVSR). It is easier to give an example than to define this idea. If they previously took 40% and now took 20% then the PVSR would be 50; if they polled 10% then the PVSR would be 25. An increased share of the vote would give a PVSR of 100+. I have used this technique rather than the more usual change in vote share as the latter is difficult to set in context. Under change in vote share a fall from 28% to 23% 'looks' the same as 10% to 5%, whereas it's actually a very different outcome.

So, excluding the Boston result (PVSR 183!), the PVSR in the remaining nine seats was: 58 54 64 53 46 42 62 59 77

In only one case did their vote share fall by less than a quarter; in two cases their vote share fell by more than half. On average they lost 43% of their vote share in these wards. The samples are pretty small, but the general trend is of performance worsening from July into September, then recovering in October. Whether this recovery is real and sustainable remains to be seen.

They contested 16 'new' seats over the five month period. Looking at some old notes I found that in February 2009 they averaged 22% in 'new' seats (boosted by the extraordinary 41% - and seat gained - in Swanley). The highest share of the vote achieved in a first-time seat in the July to October period was 13.6%! In eight of the wards - precisely half of them - they polled under 10%. A rolling average, based on the five most recent examples, shows a drift downward from 10.5% at the end of July to 9.3% at the end of October.

And so to the seven 'abandoned' seats - wards previously contested, but in which no byelection candidate was fielded. One of these was an inner-city Birmingham seat at which they had previously polled a miserable 1.5% so withdrawal might indicate a rare case of political sense! But in the other six cases only one had a previous vote share under 10%, and three had recorded vote shares between 14 and 16%.

Now I shall leave it to my readers to interpret the above as they see fit, but I feel it indicates a poor summer and early autumn for the BNP. I also feel there are some useful 'benchmarks' against which the party's progress (or regress hopefully!) can be assessed, and I shall suggest the following:

a) percentage of byelections contested each month Oct 09 21%
ai) two-month rolling average Sep/Oct 26%
b) rate of contesting previously fought seats each month Oct 09 50%
c) percentage share of the vote retained (past 10 byelections but excluding the best and the worst to avoid being affected by 'freak' results under special circumstances) Oct 09 59%
d) rolling average (past 5 results) of vote share in 'new' wards Oct 09 9.3%
e) rolling average (past 5 results) of vote share in 'abandoned' seats Oct 09 11.1%

The purpose of a and ai is hopefully obvious; b assesses their ability to continue to maintain activist involvement by contesting elections; c assesses performance in areas of sustained activity; d assesses progress - or otherwise - in opening up new areas; e indicates the effects of member disenchantment, and whether they are simply standing down in weak areas, or struggling in areas of past strength.

Good news - from our perspective - would be to see a) ai) b) c) and d) all falling, and e) rising. Anyway, I shall look forward to updating these figures in due course to see whether it does give us a useful tool in assessing their performance.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, the overall BNP performance across the five months was: No Holds, no Gains, one Loss - overall minus 1 seat. Happy days!

The BNP, migration and the misuse of Christianity

It is now a week since the infamous edition of BBC TV’s Question Time in which Nick Griffin pitted himself against 'mainstream' politicians. Now, the BBC Director General Mark Thompson has indicated that the BNP may appear annually on the programme.

The whole saga was more of a watershed for Question Time than for the BNP’s fortunes. The BBC had a good argument for the invitation and no doubt a less honourable intention bound up with the increasing 'tabloidisation' of news coverage. In this case, the news vendor was the story far more were than the news makers. That said, democracy is democracy and unsavoury views have the right to be aired. On balance, my own view is that they were probably wrong, but it is a balance. So what do we make of it all now?

On the election front, we have to take into account the fact that there may be some limited success for the BNP but this will not be of any significance in the manner of other European countries' experience of the Far Right. The danger is that it has 'taken the eye off the ball' of the isolationist, anti-immigrant yet smooth-talking UKIP.

However, there were two revelations in the programme which continue to play on the mind. The first was the incoherence of the three mainstream politicians on the issue of immigration. Chris Huhne was the most disappointing. He was clearly caught up in the moment in cloaking the best of all the party positions on immigration into the schoolyard “we are tougher than you” debate.

Jack Straw was unable to convince anyone that the Labour government’s tough approach had any impact. It is deeply ironic that Labour is seen as the party of immigration when its United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) is bringing the kind of fear which the BNP would love to be able to spread, directly into our communities.

Baroness Warsi was the most disingenuous. Having told us that we need honesty, she then proceeded to trot out a line which would have us believe that a future Conservative government would cap immigration. That is only possible if we withdraw from the Geneva Convention, Human Rights conventions and the European Union.

Anyone who wants to have a mature debate about the highly complex and extremely nuanced issues of migration in a world of cheap travel, unequal economies, huge investment in arms, persistent and irresolvable conflicts and climate change, needs to worry far more about the three main parties than about the BNP.

The second issue playing on the mind is Nick Griffin’s insistence that the BNP is defending ‘Christian Britain’. It seemed that he was using the word Christian to mean not-Muslim and not-Jewish. His one good word for Islam was that it opposed usury, in this case coded fascist language meaning that Muslims opposed Jews. Like everything that comes out of Nick Griffin’s mouth, this was very chilling, not least for those of us who hold our Christian commitment as something very precious.

So what divides Nick Griffin’s Christianity from mainstream Christianity? It is interesting that it is the more right wing of the Christian church which has leapt to its defence. What differs seems to be the fruit, not the ideology. History tells us that no Christian could sleep safely in a fascist state. However, many Christians, like the BNP, still seem to hold ‘Christian Britain’ as the ideal. They still believe our faith makes us superior to others.

How often are we told that Islam’s problem is that it did not have a reformation or was by-passed by the enlightenment? Christian amnesia fails to remember how many died in the Reformation and how it rent the church apart. It fails to recall that the Enlightenment has weakened our capacity to sense the transcendent. When statehood and faith are inextricably aligned, we cease to tell the narrative of the faith but tell instead the story of the state’s interest cloaked in virtuous language.

Bishop Michael Nazir Ali, writing in the Guardian, argues that Christian missionaries challenged difficult and enslaving cultural practices in many countries and were often, though by no means always, a force for good. That is what happens when one culture meets another. It is possible to see more clearly what is wrong with your own. It is one of the great pay-offs of migration.

The real irony is that as people of other faiths come to the UK, we will experience the same cultural challenges as those posed by previous generations of Christian missionaries. As a simple example, in my own church there is a fear that the children will be bored if they have to spend 10 minutes in the church service before their own activities. God forbid that they should hear the Bible read beautifully or learn to be quiet when they pray. Their Muslim playmates at school will be patiently undergoing the discipline of learning the Qur’an word for word and growing up better for it.

The truth is that in London, at least, the church is an immigrant church. The thousands upon thousands of Christians attending Mass, delighting in Orthodox liturgy and singing praise and worship songs with their well-thumbed Bibles in hand, are migrants. While this is happening, our church leaders are desperate not to defend them from the potential violence and hatred of the BNP, but to defend a privileged place in British society for themslves. Indeed, Lord Carey seems to want to deny their presence in defence of ‘Christian Britain’.

As Christians in Britain (we are not the whole of it!) we have to be faithful to the narrative of our faith. This is a narrative, within the Bible itself, in which the constant struggle between the nomad and the settler is played out. It is a history which tells us that the fruits of faith are indeed totally rotten when it is aligned to power and wealth. It is also one which tells us that the faith is powerful on a world stage when it defends the persecuted and the poor. A little humility is in order.

Christians who are housing undocumented migrants; buying their supermarket vouchers so the UKBA cannot determine what and how people spend their pittances; shouting loud that no civilised state would imprison children, as Britain does, for just being the children of deportees, and yes – “singing the Lord’s song in a foreign land” (as it says in the Psalms) - they, are the answer to Nick Griffin’s crude appropriation of the name ‘Christian’.

By our fruits will we all be known.

Ekklesia