The British National Party is both an ideological disgrace and hopeless in practice. The main parties must do more to encourage voting in the European elections
“Britain today is a society living in fear. Our society is overcrowded, splintered and bankrupt. We stand on the brink of destruction.” Every few years the British National Party claims to have become more sophisticated. But its reliance on an apocalyptic picture of a country on the cusp of collapse is constant. The culprits leading Britain to this brink are, as usual, immigrants, welfare scroungers and an imperial European Union.
That is not to say that the BNP does not pose a genuine threat at the forthcoming European elections. In the North West, for example, where the party’s leader, Nick Griffin, is standing, the BNP only needs to go from 6.4 per cent to 8 per cent to be virtually guaranteed a seat. A single MEP could deliver the BNP as much as £250,000 a year in salaries and office costs. An only slightly bigger increase in the vote is needed in Yorkshire and The Humber and the West Midlands.
There have been false dawns before for the BNP. But there are three reasons to think that this time the danger is more real. First, a high turnout is the best antidote to extremism. The turnout in 2004 was abnormally high — more than double what it had been in 1999 — because council elections took place simultaneously in most of the West Midlands and the North and, in four regions the elections were all-postal ballots. That may not be repeated this time.
Second, the last European election was dominated by the political success of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) which won 16 per cent of the national vote and gained 12 MEPs. UKIP has now all but imploded: some at least of that anti-European vote is back in play.
Third, recession, rising unemployment and a political class held in low public esteem provide — as government politicians regularly, and counter-productively, remind us — propitious circumstances for the politics of the far Right.
Nobody should have any doubts that these are indeed the politics of the far Right. Non-whites are, in the BNP’s own euphemism, firmly encouraged to seek voluntary repatriation. Party membership is restricted to “indigenous British ethnic groups”. One of the party’s major concerns is what it calls the Islamification of Britain. Even for that sliver of this country that shares such nonsensical views, the BNP is hopeless. Ideologically, they are a disgrace; practically, they are a joke. Like all small extremist parties, they are prone to splintering into even smaller ones. The latest internal dispute led 60 dissidents to begin referring to themselves as the “Real BNP”.
When forced to conduct real local politics the BNP is quickly revealed to be pointless. In Burnley, where three councillors were elected in 2002, the BNP contingent failed to turn up for the meeting to set the budget. In Barking, in 2005, Councillor Daniel Kelley retired after just 10 months, claiming he had been an outcast. In October 2007, James Lloyd, a BNP councillor, was disqualified from Sandwell Council for not attending a single meeting in a six-month period.
It is a good thing that a discenchanted electorate has somewhere else to cast its ballots. But there is no iron of law of politics that decrees that such sentiment needs to be turned to malign effect. In 1989 the Green party won 15 per cent of the popular vote in the European elections. Not even its most committed supporters really interpreted that vote as a sudden upsurge of environmental concern. It was, instead, the register of protest, a claim that none of the main parties had done enough to warrant their support.
To alert voters to the reality of the BNP, the main parties need to make their own case and persuade people that, no matter what they think about the state of politics in general, the BNP is worse than just useless, it is bad. A vote for the BNP is a vote for extremism and intolerance.
Times Online
Showing posts with label recession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recession. Show all posts
May 11, 2009
March 02, 2009
Recession swings politics right
The threat of political nationalism as a result of the economic crisis
Last month The Economist warned that the world recession was leading to a new wave of economic nationalism. It claimed that countries were rejecting global solutions and free trade, and turning inwards, trying to protect their own financial systems, markets and jobs. The USA had initially inserted a “Buy America” clause into its stimulus package, the French and British governments were trying to force banks to lend to the home markets, which in turn would result in the repatriation of cash, and the Chinese were accused of manipulating their currency for their own economic interests.
The article warned that the mistakes of the 1930s could potentially be made again. “Economic nationalism – the urge to keep jobs and capital at home – is both turning the economic crisis into a political one and threatening the world with depression,” the magazine noted.
“If it is not buried again forthwith, the consequences will be dire.”
But political nationalism is already emerging as a consequence of our economic downturn. Thousands of people, backed by the majority of the public and large swathes of the national press, backed construction workers in the power industry who protested against foreign labour.
The dispute flared up in response to the use of foreign labour on construction projects at oil refineries and power stations. What began at Lindsay Oil Refinery soon spread to almost 20 other plants where similar issues had emerged.
The unions were quick to distance themselves from a nationalist approach. “We are not against Italian or Spanish workers working over here but we just want a level playing field,” said Dave Smeeton, a Unite branch secretary at Staythorpe power station. “We actually want to work alongside them, just as we work in Spain and Italy. But we are not being given the chance.”
Dave was one of 50 people who had gathered outside the power station last month in protest at the use of exclusively foreign labour on a new power station being built.
For Dave and others at the protest this is a problem that has been brewing for some time. They say European workers have been here for a while, often on worse pay and conditions, but this changed over time as they interacted with unionised British workers. They say that the decision to refuse to employ any British workers can only be because hiring from abroad is cheaper (i.e. they are cutting corners on pay and conditions) and/or so they can’t interact with British workers who might be able to unionise them.
With many workers using Gordon Brown’s slogan of British jobs for British workers against him, the BNP saw an opportunity. It quickly produced downloadable leaflets, a Wildcats website and short online videos explaining how this was the consequence of membership of the EU, mass immigration and a Labour government that no longer cared about the white working class.
There was little sign however that the BNP made any impact amongst the protesters. At Lindsay Oil Refinery BNP members from Wakefield tried to leaflet the pickets but were quickly told they were not welcome. There was a similar hostile reaction to the BNP at Staythorpe.
While the BNP appears to have made little headway in winning support from union activists it is bound to be more successful among the wider population. Recent council by-elections have shown a surge in support for the BNP, helped in no small part by a daily diet of incendiary headlines from the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Star.
The BNP won a council by-election in Swanley well ahead of the other candidates and it is now predicting successes in the European election.
European unrest
Britain is not alone in experiencing unrest. In France, more than one million people marched for jobs and wages, while 350,000 marched in Dublin. Riot police were used in Greece to quell protests by farmers demanding more assistance, and in Bulgaria windows were smashed and shops attacked after demonstrations calling for economic and social reform. Latvian farmers blocked roads in the capital and laid siege to the Agricultural Ministry, while in Lithuania 80 people were arrested and 20 injured after protesters pelted the parliament building in anger over spending cuts. In Russia there have been demonstrations in almost every city against the government’s handling of the economic crisis.
And the situation is only likely to get worse as the recession deepens and economic insecurity grows. This will play out differently in each country but nationalism is likely to be a major winner.
Britain has escaped the rise in the far right that has been experienced by many other western European countries over the past decade, but this could well change this summer. The BNP poses a serious threat in three regions in the European election and a more moderate threat in a further three. The nationalist tone under which the elections will be contested, again fuelled by Eurosceptic media, will benefit the BNP.
In countries such as France the leftwing parties will attract a substantial proportion of the disgruntled working-class vote, but in Britain, without such an option, the BNP could benefit by positioning itself to the left of Labour on some issues and to the right of the Conservatives on others.
“The BNP has been steadily growing over the last few years during a period of benign economic conditions,” Jon Cruddas MP noted recently. “Now the economy is going into recession we are really going to face some problems.”
The question is how we respond to these threats. Part of the answer will be to challenge the nationalist responses to the recession, particularly exploding the myth of the British jobs for British workers approach. The slogan might be a catchy sound bite but it is no political solution. Over 300 of the largest 800 companies in the UK are foreign owned and hundreds of thousands of other UK jobs are reliant on foreign contracts.
If the BNP and the rightwing media support a British jobs for British workers approach then they must logically support a US jobs for US workers line, even if that means companies such as Rolls Royce and British Aerospace lose contracts to US firms.
It is also vital that we stand up for the rights of migrant workers and prevent one group being pitted against another. What is needed is to improve workers’ rights and conditions throughout Europe, including full rights for temporary and agency workers and paying the right rate for the job in the country where the work is undertaken. By doing this we can reduce the exploitation of vulnerable migrant workers, reduce the likelihood of unscrupulous employers using foreign workers to undercut their UK counterparts and so hopefully reduce the friction between groups of workers.
We must also stand in defence of immigration, particularly at a time when immigrants are under such attack. Just as we should remember the contribution foreign-born workers have made to the UK economy we should also think about the 5.5 million Britons who work and live abroad.
Can you imagine the nationalist outrage from the BNP and rightwing press if hundreds of thousands of British migrant workers working across Europe or in the Middle East were ordered out?
It is this sort of hypocrisy that needs to be exposed.
The BNP also needs to be taken on politically, not just morally. Over recent weeks Searchlight has been approached by representatives of all three major political parties wanting to know our assessment of the BNP threat and how they can get involved in the campaign against them. Our answer to them all has been simple. Bland and empty rhetoric about BNP extremism is at best ineffectual and at worst counter-productive. A political party needs to say more than don’t vote BNP because they racist – it needs to offer a political reason why people should vote for it rather than the BNP.
Simply moralising, particularly at a time of such economic problems, will be seen as political bankruptcy.
Over the next year we are likely to see growing social unrest. Unless the political parties, the trade unions and anti-fascists develop a more combative approach to dealing with the BNP – based on issues – then we are going to face a really difficult time. The Economist warned of a return to the failed protectionist remedies of the 1930s. We should equally be very wary of a retreat into political nationalism.
Searchlight
Last month The Economist warned that the world recession was leading to a new wave of economic nationalism. It claimed that countries were rejecting global solutions and free trade, and turning inwards, trying to protect their own financial systems, markets and jobs. The USA had initially inserted a “Buy America” clause into its stimulus package, the French and British governments were trying to force banks to lend to the home markets, which in turn would result in the repatriation of cash, and the Chinese were accused of manipulating their currency for their own economic interests.
The article warned that the mistakes of the 1930s could potentially be made again. “Economic nationalism – the urge to keep jobs and capital at home – is both turning the economic crisis into a political one and threatening the world with depression,” the magazine noted.
“If it is not buried again forthwith, the consequences will be dire.”
But political nationalism is already emerging as a consequence of our economic downturn. Thousands of people, backed by the majority of the public and large swathes of the national press, backed construction workers in the power industry who protested against foreign labour.
The dispute flared up in response to the use of foreign labour on construction projects at oil refineries and power stations. What began at Lindsay Oil Refinery soon spread to almost 20 other plants where similar issues had emerged.
The unions were quick to distance themselves from a nationalist approach. “We are not against Italian or Spanish workers working over here but we just want a level playing field,” said Dave Smeeton, a Unite branch secretary at Staythorpe power station. “We actually want to work alongside them, just as we work in Spain and Italy. But we are not being given the chance.”
Dave was one of 50 people who had gathered outside the power station last month in protest at the use of exclusively foreign labour on a new power station being built.
For Dave and others at the protest this is a problem that has been brewing for some time. They say European workers have been here for a while, often on worse pay and conditions, but this changed over time as they interacted with unionised British workers. They say that the decision to refuse to employ any British workers can only be because hiring from abroad is cheaper (i.e. they are cutting corners on pay and conditions) and/or so they can’t interact with British workers who might be able to unionise them.
With many workers using Gordon Brown’s slogan of British jobs for British workers against him, the BNP saw an opportunity. It quickly produced downloadable leaflets, a Wildcats website and short online videos explaining how this was the consequence of membership of the EU, mass immigration and a Labour government that no longer cared about the white working class.
There was little sign however that the BNP made any impact amongst the protesters. At Lindsay Oil Refinery BNP members from Wakefield tried to leaflet the pickets but were quickly told they were not welcome. There was a similar hostile reaction to the BNP at Staythorpe.
While the BNP appears to have made little headway in winning support from union activists it is bound to be more successful among the wider population. Recent council by-elections have shown a surge in support for the BNP, helped in no small part by a daily diet of incendiary headlines from the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Star.
The BNP won a council by-election in Swanley well ahead of the other candidates and it is now predicting successes in the European election.
European unrest
Britain is not alone in experiencing unrest. In France, more than one million people marched for jobs and wages, while 350,000 marched in Dublin. Riot police were used in Greece to quell protests by farmers demanding more assistance, and in Bulgaria windows were smashed and shops attacked after demonstrations calling for economic and social reform. Latvian farmers blocked roads in the capital and laid siege to the Agricultural Ministry, while in Lithuania 80 people were arrested and 20 injured after protesters pelted the parliament building in anger over spending cuts. In Russia there have been demonstrations in almost every city against the government’s handling of the economic crisis.
And the situation is only likely to get worse as the recession deepens and economic insecurity grows. This will play out differently in each country but nationalism is likely to be a major winner.
Britain has escaped the rise in the far right that has been experienced by many other western European countries over the past decade, but this could well change this summer. The BNP poses a serious threat in three regions in the European election and a more moderate threat in a further three. The nationalist tone under which the elections will be contested, again fuelled by Eurosceptic media, will benefit the BNP.
In countries such as France the leftwing parties will attract a substantial proportion of the disgruntled working-class vote, but in Britain, without such an option, the BNP could benefit by positioning itself to the left of Labour on some issues and to the right of the Conservatives on others.
“The BNP has been steadily growing over the last few years during a period of benign economic conditions,” Jon Cruddas MP noted recently. “Now the economy is going into recession we are really going to face some problems.”
The question is how we respond to these threats. Part of the answer will be to challenge the nationalist responses to the recession, particularly exploding the myth of the British jobs for British workers approach. The slogan might be a catchy sound bite but it is no political solution. Over 300 of the largest 800 companies in the UK are foreign owned and hundreds of thousands of other UK jobs are reliant on foreign contracts.
If the BNP and the rightwing media support a British jobs for British workers approach then they must logically support a US jobs for US workers line, even if that means companies such as Rolls Royce and British Aerospace lose contracts to US firms.
It is also vital that we stand up for the rights of migrant workers and prevent one group being pitted against another. What is needed is to improve workers’ rights and conditions throughout Europe, including full rights for temporary and agency workers and paying the right rate for the job in the country where the work is undertaken. By doing this we can reduce the exploitation of vulnerable migrant workers, reduce the likelihood of unscrupulous employers using foreign workers to undercut their UK counterparts and so hopefully reduce the friction between groups of workers.
We must also stand in defence of immigration, particularly at a time when immigrants are under such attack. Just as we should remember the contribution foreign-born workers have made to the UK economy we should also think about the 5.5 million Britons who work and live abroad.
Can you imagine the nationalist outrage from the BNP and rightwing press if hundreds of thousands of British migrant workers working across Europe or in the Middle East were ordered out?
It is this sort of hypocrisy that needs to be exposed.
The BNP also needs to be taken on politically, not just morally. Over recent weeks Searchlight has been approached by representatives of all three major political parties wanting to know our assessment of the BNP threat and how they can get involved in the campaign against them. Our answer to them all has been simple. Bland and empty rhetoric about BNP extremism is at best ineffectual and at worst counter-productive. A political party needs to say more than don’t vote BNP because they racist – it needs to offer a political reason why people should vote for it rather than the BNP.
Simply moralising, particularly at a time of such economic problems, will be seen as political bankruptcy.
Over the next year we are likely to see growing social unrest. Unless the political parties, the trade unions and anti-fascists develop a more combative approach to dealing with the BNP – based on issues – then we are going to face a really difficult time. The Economist warned of a return to the failed protectionist remedies of the 1930s. We should equally be very wary of a retreat into political nationalism.
Searchlight
Labels:
BNP,
Europe,
Gordon Brown,
Lindsay Oil Refinery,
nationalism,
recession,
Unite
January 30, 2009
Churches: don’t vote for BNP
Church leaders have issued a joint statement telling people not to vote for the BNP in next week’s crucial Newton by-election. They fear that if a BNP councillor is elected it will ‘threaten the heart of the community’.
A letter signed by half-a-dozen clergy in Hyde has been sent to voters urging them not to vote for the far-right party.
The by-election on Thursday follows the death of Labour councillor Margaret Oldham last month. In last May’s elections the BNP took second place. And with the recession biting, worries are mounting voters may turn their backs on the mainstream parties.
The Rev Richard Lamey, of St Mary’s Church, Newton said: "We are intending to deliver this letter to as many people as possible in the ward to urge people to go out and vote on 5 February — and to vote for parties which do not foster fear and hatred. We are concerned at the possibility of a BNP councillor in Newton, hence our taking this unusual step."
In the letter, the church leaders condemn the ‘racist history and policies’ of the BNP. It states: ‘We believe that the election of a BNP councillor would threaten the heart of a community which is essentially open and welcoming, kind and hopeful. Whoever we elect in Newton next week will have a major impact on our daily lives. And when you do vote, think about the type of society you want Newton to be, and then vote for a party which does not rely on racial hatred and the fostering of division. Newton is better than that.’
The letter is signed by: Fr Philip Bennison (St Stephen’s Church, Flowery Field); The Rev Nic Bentley (Rosemount Methodist Church); The Rev Alan Bolton (Rosemount Methodist Church); The Rev Eric Breeze (Flowery Field Church); The Rev Richard Lamey (St Mary’s Church of England Church, Newton); Fr Denis Maher (St Paul’s Roman Catholic Church, Hyde).
Anthony Jones, local BNP spokesman, said: "These men speak only for themselves from an unelected position. They are cossetted against the current economic climate. They don’t have any real fears over losing their jobs. The council and the clergy are clearly worried the BNP will win that seat."
Tameside Advertiser
A letter signed by half-a-dozen clergy in Hyde has been sent to voters urging them not to vote for the far-right party.
The by-election on Thursday follows the death of Labour councillor Margaret Oldham last month. In last May’s elections the BNP took second place. And with the recession biting, worries are mounting voters may turn their backs on the mainstream parties.
The Rev Richard Lamey, of St Mary’s Church, Newton said: "We are intending to deliver this letter to as many people as possible in the ward to urge people to go out and vote on 5 February — and to vote for parties which do not foster fear and hatred. We are concerned at the possibility of a BNP councillor in Newton, hence our taking this unusual step."
In the letter, the church leaders condemn the ‘racist history and policies’ of the BNP. It states: ‘We believe that the election of a BNP councillor would threaten the heart of a community which is essentially open and welcoming, kind and hopeful. Whoever we elect in Newton next week will have a major impact on our daily lives. And when you do vote, think about the type of society you want Newton to be, and then vote for a party which does not rely on racial hatred and the fostering of division. Newton is better than that.’
The letter is signed by: Fr Philip Bennison (St Stephen’s Church, Flowery Field); The Rev Nic Bentley (Rosemount Methodist Church); The Rev Alan Bolton (Rosemount Methodist Church); The Rev Eric Breeze (Flowery Field Church); The Rev Richard Lamey (St Mary’s Church of England Church, Newton); Fr Denis Maher (St Paul’s Roman Catholic Church, Hyde).
Anthony Jones, local BNP spokesman, said: "These men speak only for themselves from an unelected position. They are cossetted against the current economic climate. They don’t have any real fears over losing their jobs. The council and the clergy are clearly worried the BNP will win that seat."
Tameside Advertiser
January 26, 2009
The biggest anti-fascist campaign ever
The BNP is looking to exploit the recession to win Euro seats; but thousands of people will thwart its message of hate
Over the next few months Searchlight and its HOPE not hate campaign will be gearing up to prevent the BNP from winning seats in the European elections. We anticipate mobilising thousands of activists and delivering over 2 million leaflets and newspapers in what will be the biggest and most intense anti-fascist campaign in history.
And it is needed. The BNP poses a threat in six Euro regions, with as little as 7.5% required in the North West, where the party leader, Nick Griffin, is standing. With Ukip faltering, few local elections and the economy hurtling into recession, we will need everyone who opposes the BNP's message of hate to play a part. A BNP victory will change the political landscape in Britain.
The last few years have seen the British National Party make significant electoral gains across the length and breadth of the political landscape – often off the radar of the political and media class at Westminster, which has remained preoccupied with a very small part of the electoral map that decides Westminster elections: so-called middle Britain.
Quietly but steadily the BNP has been building its support. While many commentators have focused on its traditional heartlands in the Lancashire and Yorkshire mill towns, the BNP has been widening its base across the country. In 2007 the BNP stood 742 council candidates, averaging 14.7% of the vote. Last year they averaged 13.9% in 642 wards. The regional average vote is fairly consistent across the country.
The critical element to this palpable support for the BNP is that it has occurred against the backdrop of extraordinarily benign macroeconomic conditions. Well over a decade of continuous quarter-on-quarter growth, low interest rates, falling unemployment and general prosperity have obscured the economic and cultural issues the BNP has focused on. It has tapped into a deep sense of alienation among many who have not prospered in the good times, a corresponding fracture of working class identity, and indeed demonisation in popular culture – all refracted through the prism of race.
On 15 September last year, when Lehman Brothers went for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US, the world changed. More specifically the world changed in terms of the climate within which the BNP is seeking to gain political traction. Any cursory reading of history suggests that recession and depression breed extremism; everything else being equal, the BNP will expect to benefit from the suffering and the insecurities that will intensify over the coming months and years.
Jon Cruddas and Nick Lowles
Comment is Free
Over the next few months Searchlight and its HOPE not hate campaign will be gearing up to prevent the BNP from winning seats in the European elections. We anticipate mobilising thousands of activists and delivering over 2 million leaflets and newspapers in what will be the biggest and most intense anti-fascist campaign in history.
And it is needed. The BNP poses a threat in six Euro regions, with as little as 7.5% required in the North West, where the party leader, Nick Griffin, is standing. With Ukip faltering, few local elections and the economy hurtling into recession, we will need everyone who opposes the BNP's message of hate to play a part. A BNP victory will change the political landscape in Britain.
The last few years have seen the British National Party make significant electoral gains across the length and breadth of the political landscape – often off the radar of the political and media class at Westminster, which has remained preoccupied with a very small part of the electoral map that decides Westminster elections: so-called middle Britain.
Quietly but steadily the BNP has been building its support. While many commentators have focused on its traditional heartlands in the Lancashire and Yorkshire mill towns, the BNP has been widening its base across the country. In 2007 the BNP stood 742 council candidates, averaging 14.7% of the vote. Last year they averaged 13.9% in 642 wards. The regional average vote is fairly consistent across the country.
The critical element to this palpable support for the BNP is that it has occurred against the backdrop of extraordinarily benign macroeconomic conditions. Well over a decade of continuous quarter-on-quarter growth, low interest rates, falling unemployment and general prosperity have obscured the economic and cultural issues the BNP has focused on. It has tapped into a deep sense of alienation among many who have not prospered in the good times, a corresponding fracture of working class identity, and indeed demonisation in popular culture – all refracted through the prism of race.
On 15 September last year, when Lehman Brothers went for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US, the world changed. More specifically the world changed in terms of the climate within which the BNP is seeking to gain political traction. Any cursory reading of history suggests that recession and depression breed extremism; everything else being equal, the BNP will expect to benefit from the suffering and the insecurities that will intensify over the coming months and years.
Jon Cruddas and Nick Lowles
Comment is Free
November 11, 2008
Is a recession good news for the BNP?
As Britain slips into recession there is one political party that is gleeful. Nick Lowles assesses how the BNP will benefit from the unfolding economic crisis.
Conventional wisdom suggests that the British National Party will benefit politically from a recession. Government ministers certainly seem to think so. Journalists think so. And the BNP themselves certainly think so.
With unemployment likely to hit two million by the end of the year and house prices dropping 15% in the past 12 months, most people are feeling the pinch. The government’s response to the credit crunch might have boosted its poll ratings in the short term but it could be the far-right BNP that benefits when the recession really bites.
“Economic meltdowns are one of the drivers of political revolutions, and the BNP must be ready to take advantage of the mess all of the other parties have made of the economy,” David Hannam, the BNP deputy treasurer, told a party meeting recently.
He went on to explain the party’s line of attack. “Each immigrant who entered Britain decreased job prospects for native British workers. Our freedom is linked to the financial state of the country, and in a recession it is the workers who are first and hardest hit. The truth is that in an economically declining society, the worker is hit, but even in a so-called economically growing society, it is the worker who also gets hit. Successful monopolies are a by-product of globalism, and it is monopolies that decrease the demand for workers.”
His view is backed by party leader Nick Griffin who is confidently boasting that the BNP will benefit enormously from an economic downturn.
The belief of a far-right gain is supported by the Labour MP Jon Cruddas. “I’ve got a sense of foreboding about what lies ahead,” he told the BBC. “It will make a qualitative difference in terms of the context within which they’re allowed to perpetuate their scapegoating and myth-making.”
The government, meanwhile, is worried that an economic downturn would result in increased racial tension and violence between communities and even terrorism. In a 12-page internal memo, leaked to the Conservatives two months ago, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith relayed her concern over the consequences of an economic crisis. “There is a risk of a downturn increasing the appeal of far-right extremism and racism, which presents a threat as there is evidence that grievances based on experiencing racism are one of the factors that can lead to people becoming terrorists.”
The memo added that a downturn would affect the need for migrant workers, particularly in jobs such as construction where they make up a large proportion of the workforce. “Increased public hostility to migrants” was predicted to result from heightened competition for employment.
The government is so concerned that it has recently established a new police taskforce to monitor racist violence.
Controversy
Last month the new Immigration Minister controversially weighed into the debate. Phil Woolas told The Times that immigration became an “extremely thorny” subject if people were losing their jobs.
“It’s been too easy to get into this country in the past and it’s going to get harder,” he said.
Employers should, he believes, put British people first, or they will risk fuelling racism. “In times of economic difficulties, racial stereotyping becomes stronger but also if you’ve got skills shortages you should, as a government, attempt to fill those skills shortages with your indigenous population.”
Woolas was careful to include all British people in his British first policy, highlighting the high levels of unemployment affecting the British Bangladeshi community. He claimed that it was all too easy for an employer to hire a migrant to fill a job rather than to retrain British people of all races.
While Woolas was actually addressing some tough issues, including many which have wrongly been ignored for too long, he left himself open to attack with a series of incendiary quotes which he should have known would cause offence. He promised not to allow Britain’s population to rise above 70 million and attacked “health tourism”.
“It’s a national health service – it’s not an international health service,” he said.
Woolas has not been alone in raising difficult and controversial issues. Trevor Phillips, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, also weighed into the debate last month. Speaking ahead of an address to a CBI conference, Phillips said: “After forty years in which it was impolite to speak frankly about immigration policy, we now must be able to address this fundamental aspect of economic policy without embarrassment or without fear of being labelled closet racists or open-border fantasists.
“In what is to come, the best defence against prejudice against immigrants will be to make those who resent them competitive, to give them a place in society.
“We may need to do so with the sort of special measures we’ve previously targeted at ethnic minorities. But the name of the game today is to tackle inequality, not racial special pleading.”
This was not his first foray into this terrain. He had previously stressed the importance of positive action to help white working class communities through the economic crisis. “What we are seeing is that there is a whole group of people, a large proportion of whom are white, who are going to suffer from this crisis who are going to be the people we should want to help, particularly because they come from the wrong side of town,” he said.
“We are going to have to do something special for them. We are going to have to put extra resources where young people can’t compete with migrants’ skills.
“And in some parts of the country, it is clear that what defines disadvantage won’t be black or brown, it will be white. And we will have to take positive action to help some white groups, what we might call the white underclass.”
Nothing is certain
However, there are dissenting voices to the view that the far right will necessarily gain from an economic downturn. “Although there tends to be a bit of moral panic about it, it’s never really happened in a way that, in any sense, threatens the domination of the political scene by the main parties,” Professor Colin Rallings, from Plymouth University, says.
He went on to stress that previous economic downturns had been accompanied by only short-term boosts for the right and were often geographically patchy.
Is Rawlings right? Will any boost for the far right be patchy and short-lived? Certainly recent history is on his side. The 1970s economic crisis failed to give any long-lasting boost to the National Front. Indeed, if anything, the political fortunes of the NF were already on the wane at the height of the crisis and certainly by the early 1980s, when unemployment topped three million and bank base rate was in double figures and reached over 15%, the NF hardly existed.
During the recession of the early 1990s, and despite widespread media-fuelled concern over refugees, the BNP remained a largely inconsequential political force.
A different world
There is reason to believe that events might be different this time around. Britain of today is very different from that of the late 1970s. The Cold War overshadowed British and indeed world politics. There was a vibrant left in Britain and a strong and very active trade union movement. The Second World War was still strong in public consciousness and nationalism was a dirty word.
Since then the Soviet Union has collapsed and Europe fragmented. Nationalism has become the driving ideology of the past 20 years and socialism and social democracy are experiencing an identity crisis of huge proportions. In the past year alone eight out of ten social democratic parties have been driven from power in Europe, partly to the benefit of the far right. Fascist and rightwing populist parties have been rising across western Europe and there is no reason to suggest that the same cannot happen in Britain.
Additionally, the BNP of today is quite different from the NF of the 1970s. The NF contested elections, but only in a half-hearted manner. For the NF leaders John Tyndall and Martin Webster elections were simply an organising tool but real power was going to be gained through control of the streets and by positioning themselves as ready to answer society’s call to restore social order.
By contrast, the BNP has understood some political realities. It has publicly dropped some of its hardline policies, such as compulsory repatriation, which it knew would not be accepted by the vast majority of the population, and it has turned to local politics. As a result the BNP is positioning itself as a real and lasting challenge to the main political parties, particularly Labour.
More importantly, the political terrain has changed. Disillusionment with the mainstream parties is at an all-time high, voting at an all-time low and active participation in political parties is, in too many communities, seemingly non-existent.
It is into this disillusionment that the BNP message is resonating. Race remains the cornerstone of BNP politics but its appeal is far wider and deeper. It is precisely because of this that the BNP could benefit enormously from an economic downturn.
In Stoke-on-Trent the BNP believes it can take control of the council within two years. If there had been a mayoral contest next spring there were many, including some government ministers, who believed the BNP could win. At 6% of the local population the non-white community is tiny compared to many other towns and cities across the country. Immigration and race are not the causes of the city’s problems but simply the prism through which the BNP allows local people to understand their problems and anger.
The same is true for many other areas where the BNP is doing well. The former mining communities of Rotherham, Heanor and Nuneaton, three other areas of BNP success, have relatively small BME populations but deep-rooted structural economic problems.
Compare that to the NF of the 1970s, which drew the bulk of its support from towns and cities, such as Leicester and Bradford, which experienced the greatest influx of non-white immigrants.
There are two other issues that differentiate the present from the 1970s. The Cold War has been replaced by a world defined by the “war on terror” and just as a recession could boost the far right, so fundamentalist religious groups will prosper.
As unemployment rises and disillusionment with mainstream parties deepens, friction between new and old communities will grow. Winding this up will be the BNP and other fascist groups on one side and fundamentalist religious groups, bent on demonising other communities and religions, on the other. There is a symbiotic relationship between these extremes, with both needing the other to justify their own existence.
This could play out on the streets, as we saw so vividly in Oldham and Burnley in 2001, or through a rise in domestic terrorism. It is this fear that is gripping the Home Office. We are already beginning to see a rise in violent racism and this is only likely to accelerate as the economy nosedives.
There has also been a rise in terrorism in recent times. While every Muslim plot attracts massive media attention, less known has been the increase in attempted far-right terrorism, both in Britain and across the continent. In 2007, ten people were arrested in alleged rightwing plots in Britain. While all were stopped before they were executed, it does raise the likelihood that rightwing terrorism, be it by individuals or small groups, will continue to grow. One can only imagine the consequences of a fascist bombing campaign against Muslim targets in Britain. Likewise, while the feel good factor following the decision to award London the Olympics probably helped to defuse a backlash against the London bombs of 2005, a similar bombing campaign amid an economic downturn might have a different outcome.
In the 1970s the trade unions played a crucial role in defeating the NF and today they have once again indicated their willingness to take a lead. But today’s world, particularly in the workplace, is very different from that of 30 years ago. The unions are weaker, more workplaces are un-unionised and also fragmented.
“The workplace is different from the 1970s,” says Paul Meszaros, secretary of Bradford Trades Council. “Back then workplaces were bigger and more unionised so it was more common for Asian and white people to work alongside each other. We were able to debate, argue and eventually find common ground.
“Today, workplaces are smaller and with communities living more separate lives and in different neighbourhoods within the city there are fewer opportunities for people to come together.”
Recession might be a gift to the BNP but whether it will exploit the opportunity remains to be seen. Despite its growing sophistication the BNP still struggles to win first-past-the-post elections. It has even performed poorly in recent by-elections, including some in traditional strongholds.
How opponents of the BNP react will also determine the potential electoral boost for the far right and this is where things need to change. The criticism of Woolas and Phillips has been strong and sometimes correct but it has also highlighted two fundamental issues. Firstly, a common unwillingness to debate difficult but very real issues and secondly an acknowledgement that progressives have partly contributed to the problem.
The error of identity politics
It is easy to criticise Woolas for his comments and of course some of his remarks echo the disastrous “British jobs for British workers” approach adopted by Gordon Brown last year. However, he was trying to grapple with some difficult issues, which all too many people prefer to ignore.
Likewise, Phillips’s call for preferential treatment for white working class communities has been met by a barrage of criticism, some of it justified, some not. Phillips is totally correct in saying that a growing number of white working class people feel ignored, abandoned and unrepresented. As I myself have argued previously, the BNP is providing an identity for sections of this group.
However, accepting the existence of these sub-groups and calling for preferential treatment is part of the problem in the first place. We no longer talk of a working class without sub-dividing it along racial lines. Playing identity politics is a very dangerous game and it is now coming back to haunt us. Too much government policy and spending, locally and nationally, is directed through the prism of race, which is unwittingly helping to create this “white” identity, which is in turn being exploited by the BNP. Too many progressive people have been complicit in this, knowingly or unknowingly.
To prevent the BNP from exploiting our economic worries, class needs to replace race in popular discourse. We shouldn’t have white unemployed or black unemployed but just unemployed. We shouldn’t talk about white workers or black workers but just workers. That isn’t to say that we should ignore groups or not recognise particular hardships or discrimination, but we have to find a way to bring people along together, to get them to understand a common interest and shared future. If we don’t then how can we complain when communal groups, including the white working class, compete for scarce resources.
Similarly, we need to develop a more secular approach. One of the successes of the anti-fascist and anti-racist struggle in the late 1970s was its secularism. This was particularly found within the Asian Youth Movement, which brought together young Asian people of different religious backgrounds. While accepting the right to faith, we again need to find ways to bring people from different religious backgrounds together and this is no easy task. It is not just a question of differences between Christian and Muslim communities. In today’s Britain there is widespread suspicion and distrust between many religions, another issue that has too long been ignored.
We must bring more politics (with a small p) into anti-fascism. Just as we have been arguing for the past couple of years that simply shouting “nazi” at the BNP is no longer sufficient, so we must recognise that just calling for “Hope” over hate is also inadequate. When people are struggling economically and perhaps see little hope around them, we need to be able to address some of the underlying issues that might make them susceptible to the BNP and answer directly racist myths. Hope is a positive concept but will only resonate when people feel good about the community in which they live and positive about their own economic future.
Fairness
However, we also need to show fairness in our approach. We need to demonstrate that we are fighting for everyone, regardless of colour of skin or religious background. We must also be prepared to criticise and condemn when it is necessary. Wrong is wrong, from whichever angle or community it derives.
Trade unions are in an excellent position to take on the BNP and its economic scapegoating, but it needs a different approach. Unions need to find a more direct way to engage with their members and their families than they do at present. A letter through the post or an article in a union journal is no substitute for a workplace meeting and human dialogue.
The road ahead will not be easy. A recession will increase insecurity and so suspicion and hostility between communities. As the job market shrinks and local resources become increasingly scarce so racism and bitterness will grow. The BNP could make huge advances in the next couple of years. Whether it does will partly depend on how we – government, unions and anti-fascists – respond.
Searchlight
Conventional wisdom suggests that the British National Party will benefit politically from a recession. Government ministers certainly seem to think so. Journalists think so. And the BNP themselves certainly think so.
With unemployment likely to hit two million by the end of the year and house prices dropping 15% in the past 12 months, most people are feeling the pinch. The government’s response to the credit crunch might have boosted its poll ratings in the short term but it could be the far-right BNP that benefits when the recession really bites.
“Economic meltdowns are one of the drivers of political revolutions, and the BNP must be ready to take advantage of the mess all of the other parties have made of the economy,” David Hannam, the BNP deputy treasurer, told a party meeting recently.
He went on to explain the party’s line of attack. “Each immigrant who entered Britain decreased job prospects for native British workers. Our freedom is linked to the financial state of the country, and in a recession it is the workers who are first and hardest hit. The truth is that in an economically declining society, the worker is hit, but even in a so-called economically growing society, it is the worker who also gets hit. Successful monopolies are a by-product of globalism, and it is monopolies that decrease the demand for workers.”
His view is backed by party leader Nick Griffin who is confidently boasting that the BNP will benefit enormously from an economic downturn.
The belief of a far-right gain is supported by the Labour MP Jon Cruddas. “I’ve got a sense of foreboding about what lies ahead,” he told the BBC. “It will make a qualitative difference in terms of the context within which they’re allowed to perpetuate their scapegoating and myth-making.”
The government, meanwhile, is worried that an economic downturn would result in increased racial tension and violence between communities and even terrorism. In a 12-page internal memo, leaked to the Conservatives two months ago, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith relayed her concern over the consequences of an economic crisis. “There is a risk of a downturn increasing the appeal of far-right extremism and racism, which presents a threat as there is evidence that grievances based on experiencing racism are one of the factors that can lead to people becoming terrorists.”
The memo added that a downturn would affect the need for migrant workers, particularly in jobs such as construction where they make up a large proportion of the workforce. “Increased public hostility to migrants” was predicted to result from heightened competition for employment.
The government is so concerned that it has recently established a new police taskforce to monitor racist violence.
Controversy
Last month the new Immigration Minister controversially weighed into the debate. Phil Woolas told The Times that immigration became an “extremely thorny” subject if people were losing their jobs.
“It’s been too easy to get into this country in the past and it’s going to get harder,” he said.
Employers should, he believes, put British people first, or they will risk fuelling racism. “In times of economic difficulties, racial stereotyping becomes stronger but also if you’ve got skills shortages you should, as a government, attempt to fill those skills shortages with your indigenous population.”
Woolas was careful to include all British people in his British first policy, highlighting the high levels of unemployment affecting the British Bangladeshi community. He claimed that it was all too easy for an employer to hire a migrant to fill a job rather than to retrain British people of all races.
While Woolas was actually addressing some tough issues, including many which have wrongly been ignored for too long, he left himself open to attack with a series of incendiary quotes which he should have known would cause offence. He promised not to allow Britain’s population to rise above 70 million and attacked “health tourism”.
“It’s a national health service – it’s not an international health service,” he said.
Woolas has not been alone in raising difficult and controversial issues. Trevor Phillips, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, also weighed into the debate last month. Speaking ahead of an address to a CBI conference, Phillips said: “After forty years in which it was impolite to speak frankly about immigration policy, we now must be able to address this fundamental aspect of economic policy without embarrassment or without fear of being labelled closet racists or open-border fantasists.
“In what is to come, the best defence against prejudice against immigrants will be to make those who resent them competitive, to give them a place in society.
“We may need to do so with the sort of special measures we’ve previously targeted at ethnic minorities. But the name of the game today is to tackle inequality, not racial special pleading.”
This was not his first foray into this terrain. He had previously stressed the importance of positive action to help white working class communities through the economic crisis. “What we are seeing is that there is a whole group of people, a large proportion of whom are white, who are going to suffer from this crisis who are going to be the people we should want to help, particularly because they come from the wrong side of town,” he said.
“We are going to have to do something special for them. We are going to have to put extra resources where young people can’t compete with migrants’ skills.
“And in some parts of the country, it is clear that what defines disadvantage won’t be black or brown, it will be white. And we will have to take positive action to help some white groups, what we might call the white underclass.”
Nothing is certain
However, there are dissenting voices to the view that the far right will necessarily gain from an economic downturn. “Although there tends to be a bit of moral panic about it, it’s never really happened in a way that, in any sense, threatens the domination of the political scene by the main parties,” Professor Colin Rallings, from Plymouth University, says.
He went on to stress that previous economic downturns had been accompanied by only short-term boosts for the right and were often geographically patchy.
Is Rawlings right? Will any boost for the far right be patchy and short-lived? Certainly recent history is on his side. The 1970s economic crisis failed to give any long-lasting boost to the National Front. Indeed, if anything, the political fortunes of the NF were already on the wane at the height of the crisis and certainly by the early 1980s, when unemployment topped three million and bank base rate was in double figures and reached over 15%, the NF hardly existed.
During the recession of the early 1990s, and despite widespread media-fuelled concern over refugees, the BNP remained a largely inconsequential political force.
A different world
There is reason to believe that events might be different this time around. Britain of today is very different from that of the late 1970s. The Cold War overshadowed British and indeed world politics. There was a vibrant left in Britain and a strong and very active trade union movement. The Second World War was still strong in public consciousness and nationalism was a dirty word.
Since then the Soviet Union has collapsed and Europe fragmented. Nationalism has become the driving ideology of the past 20 years and socialism and social democracy are experiencing an identity crisis of huge proportions. In the past year alone eight out of ten social democratic parties have been driven from power in Europe, partly to the benefit of the far right. Fascist and rightwing populist parties have been rising across western Europe and there is no reason to suggest that the same cannot happen in Britain.
Additionally, the BNP of today is quite different from the NF of the 1970s. The NF contested elections, but only in a half-hearted manner. For the NF leaders John Tyndall and Martin Webster elections were simply an organising tool but real power was going to be gained through control of the streets and by positioning themselves as ready to answer society’s call to restore social order.
By contrast, the BNP has understood some political realities. It has publicly dropped some of its hardline policies, such as compulsory repatriation, which it knew would not be accepted by the vast majority of the population, and it has turned to local politics. As a result the BNP is positioning itself as a real and lasting challenge to the main political parties, particularly Labour.
More importantly, the political terrain has changed. Disillusionment with the mainstream parties is at an all-time high, voting at an all-time low and active participation in political parties is, in too many communities, seemingly non-existent.
It is into this disillusionment that the BNP message is resonating. Race remains the cornerstone of BNP politics but its appeal is far wider and deeper. It is precisely because of this that the BNP could benefit enormously from an economic downturn.
In Stoke-on-Trent the BNP believes it can take control of the council within two years. If there had been a mayoral contest next spring there were many, including some government ministers, who believed the BNP could win. At 6% of the local population the non-white community is tiny compared to many other towns and cities across the country. Immigration and race are not the causes of the city’s problems but simply the prism through which the BNP allows local people to understand their problems and anger.
The same is true for many other areas where the BNP is doing well. The former mining communities of Rotherham, Heanor and Nuneaton, three other areas of BNP success, have relatively small BME populations but deep-rooted structural economic problems.
Compare that to the NF of the 1970s, which drew the bulk of its support from towns and cities, such as Leicester and Bradford, which experienced the greatest influx of non-white immigrants.
There are two other issues that differentiate the present from the 1970s. The Cold War has been replaced by a world defined by the “war on terror” and just as a recession could boost the far right, so fundamentalist religious groups will prosper.
As unemployment rises and disillusionment with mainstream parties deepens, friction between new and old communities will grow. Winding this up will be the BNP and other fascist groups on one side and fundamentalist religious groups, bent on demonising other communities and religions, on the other. There is a symbiotic relationship between these extremes, with both needing the other to justify their own existence.
This could play out on the streets, as we saw so vividly in Oldham and Burnley in 2001, or through a rise in domestic terrorism. It is this fear that is gripping the Home Office. We are already beginning to see a rise in violent racism and this is only likely to accelerate as the economy nosedives.
There has also been a rise in terrorism in recent times. While every Muslim plot attracts massive media attention, less known has been the increase in attempted far-right terrorism, both in Britain and across the continent. In 2007, ten people were arrested in alleged rightwing plots in Britain. While all were stopped before they were executed, it does raise the likelihood that rightwing terrorism, be it by individuals or small groups, will continue to grow. One can only imagine the consequences of a fascist bombing campaign against Muslim targets in Britain. Likewise, while the feel good factor following the decision to award London the Olympics probably helped to defuse a backlash against the London bombs of 2005, a similar bombing campaign amid an economic downturn might have a different outcome.
In the 1970s the trade unions played a crucial role in defeating the NF and today they have once again indicated their willingness to take a lead. But today’s world, particularly in the workplace, is very different from that of 30 years ago. The unions are weaker, more workplaces are un-unionised and also fragmented.
“The workplace is different from the 1970s,” says Paul Meszaros, secretary of Bradford Trades Council. “Back then workplaces were bigger and more unionised so it was more common for Asian and white people to work alongside each other. We were able to debate, argue and eventually find common ground.
“Today, workplaces are smaller and with communities living more separate lives and in different neighbourhoods within the city there are fewer opportunities for people to come together.”
Recession might be a gift to the BNP but whether it will exploit the opportunity remains to be seen. Despite its growing sophistication the BNP still struggles to win first-past-the-post elections. It has even performed poorly in recent by-elections, including some in traditional strongholds.
How opponents of the BNP react will also determine the potential electoral boost for the far right and this is where things need to change. The criticism of Woolas and Phillips has been strong and sometimes correct but it has also highlighted two fundamental issues. Firstly, a common unwillingness to debate difficult but very real issues and secondly an acknowledgement that progressives have partly contributed to the problem.
The error of identity politics
It is easy to criticise Woolas for his comments and of course some of his remarks echo the disastrous “British jobs for British workers” approach adopted by Gordon Brown last year. However, he was trying to grapple with some difficult issues, which all too many people prefer to ignore.
Likewise, Phillips’s call for preferential treatment for white working class communities has been met by a barrage of criticism, some of it justified, some not. Phillips is totally correct in saying that a growing number of white working class people feel ignored, abandoned and unrepresented. As I myself have argued previously, the BNP is providing an identity for sections of this group.
However, accepting the existence of these sub-groups and calling for preferential treatment is part of the problem in the first place. We no longer talk of a working class without sub-dividing it along racial lines. Playing identity politics is a very dangerous game and it is now coming back to haunt us. Too much government policy and spending, locally and nationally, is directed through the prism of race, which is unwittingly helping to create this “white” identity, which is in turn being exploited by the BNP. Too many progressive people have been complicit in this, knowingly or unknowingly.
To prevent the BNP from exploiting our economic worries, class needs to replace race in popular discourse. We shouldn’t have white unemployed or black unemployed but just unemployed. We shouldn’t talk about white workers or black workers but just workers. That isn’t to say that we should ignore groups or not recognise particular hardships or discrimination, but we have to find a way to bring people along together, to get them to understand a common interest and shared future. If we don’t then how can we complain when communal groups, including the white working class, compete for scarce resources.
Similarly, we need to develop a more secular approach. One of the successes of the anti-fascist and anti-racist struggle in the late 1970s was its secularism. This was particularly found within the Asian Youth Movement, which brought together young Asian people of different religious backgrounds. While accepting the right to faith, we again need to find ways to bring people from different religious backgrounds together and this is no easy task. It is not just a question of differences between Christian and Muslim communities. In today’s Britain there is widespread suspicion and distrust between many religions, another issue that has too long been ignored.
We must bring more politics (with a small p) into anti-fascism. Just as we have been arguing for the past couple of years that simply shouting “nazi” at the BNP is no longer sufficient, so we must recognise that just calling for “Hope” over hate is also inadequate. When people are struggling economically and perhaps see little hope around them, we need to be able to address some of the underlying issues that might make them susceptible to the BNP and answer directly racist myths. Hope is a positive concept but will only resonate when people feel good about the community in which they live and positive about their own economic future.
Fairness
However, we also need to show fairness in our approach. We need to demonstrate that we are fighting for everyone, regardless of colour of skin or religious background. We must also be prepared to criticise and condemn when it is necessary. Wrong is wrong, from whichever angle or community it derives.
Trade unions are in an excellent position to take on the BNP and its economic scapegoating, but it needs a different approach. Unions need to find a more direct way to engage with their members and their families than they do at present. A letter through the post or an article in a union journal is no substitute for a workplace meeting and human dialogue.
The road ahead will not be easy. A recession will increase insecurity and so suspicion and hostility between communities. As the job market shrinks and local resources become increasingly scarce so racism and bitterness will grow. The BNP could make huge advances in the next couple of years. Whether it does will partly depend on how we – government, unions and anti-fascists – respond.
Searchlight
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
