Evil and exposed

Peter,

Labour have a long history of nationalisation, Christ, it's only recently nationalised the largest bank in the world.

The Tories only ever nationalised one, Rolls Royce in 1971 because the government was finding it difficult to pay them for the New TriStar jetliner.

The BNP campaigned on left-wing policies, it was a Trojan horse, turn the Labour vote into thinking they were voting Labour but with added far-right ideas on immigration.

ONE MILLION PEOPLE voted BNP. Now that means we have 1,000,000 racists in the UK - unlikely. OR those 1,000,000 people utterly rejected groupthink on immigration.

Combined with Labour not bothering to even debate with the BNP on platform and it desertion of its core vote - that's akin to opening the stable door, letting your horses bolt and then complaining when the farmer next door has shot them all for glue.

It's not apologia for the BNP - they are a pack of neo-Nazi fruitloops that a 16 year old with an appreciation of history could beat in debate in his lunchtime.

Labour aren't on that platform doing what they should be doing - debating and winning the argument. Having a luvvie fit of pique plays right into the BNP's hands.

Witness in the south of the UK, the Conservatives took them on in debate and the BNP got absolutely nowhere.

What it is about is Labour's appalling lack of coherent immigration polices, appalling lack of engagement in democratic debate and desertion of its core working class vote.

That's not apologia for the BNP - that's Labour not even showing up and playing to the democratic process.

It's worse than apologising for the BNP, it's an abhorrent and two-fingered salute to the working class, their needs and wants AND the democratic process. Labour brought the BNP on us and themselves.

Don't even think for a second that this is in some way excusing the BNP again. I am not in any way shape or form.

This is about shaking the left into actually doing something to get rid of these odious people out of public life.

BNP members aren't banned from joining the police, police officers are banned from being members of the BNP - just like they're banned from being members of Labour or Conservative or any other party.

The BNP often complain about it, but it's actually a sign that they are being treated like other parties.

"alas they were voted in by a democratic process."

Yes they were, unlike Mandleson, Kinnock, Royall, Adonis etc etc

So, where next. Remove the vote from the people the say way as the Labour party have removed the representation from the people?

'The left-wing carry public ownership of the factors of production as a key political aim.'

Are you serious?

You might as well say that the Tory's central philosophy is belief in the divine right of monarchs.

We on the left have come some way since 1917. I think that a general belief in wealth distribution through progressive taxation, equality of opportunity and state provision of not-for-proft public services might be a better summary of the left. And that is being radical.

Not that this point about the number of votes has any serious significance but what were the national figures?

How many people in total voted BNP in the UK 2009 election compared with last time.

Quoting one region is meaningless.

Peter

Very witty. But your 1970s comparison is about as helpful and relevant as brandishing Hitler. Your analysis of the situation way too shallow.

Fact: The BNP won nearly 1 million votes, Labour won only 2.3 million

3 things happened that led to a BNP victory:

1. The BNP core vote all turned up. (That was unavoidable)
2. Your core support has drained away, making point 1 more effective. (That was avoidable)
3. A good number of people wanted to teach you a lesson. (So was this)

The solution can only be found by asking why 2 & 3 happened:

The only answer here is that the majority of people, including your core voters, consider your policies to have failed. (Interested to hear any other conclusion)

Now the big question is “What will Labour do about it?”

And the answer seems to be: “We are going to deliver you more of the same, but we will try harder.”

Its too easy to just demonise the BNP and their policies, you have to go deeper than that, almost 1 million people have given them the thumbs up and I just don’t believe that they are all hard core BNP supporters.

You lot have to start asking WHY and fast. And I warn you its not just about communication its about your failed policies.

One last point, If I were a committed Tory Id be very keen to see you carry on as before, Id want Brown as leader right up to the election. He’s every other parties biggest asset.

You have a self serving definition of 'left wing' that merely focuses on nationalisation: something which was not present in most socialist though prior to Clause 4 - a Clause which was amended in the mid 90s.

Tories also nationalised industries, and Labour have privatised. Many many governments across the world have effectively nationalised their banking systems to prevent total meltdown in the last year.

The BNP stand on a platform of racism, of 'Britishness' at the exclusion of 'Non-caucasians'. We all know that. You're abject parsing of this issue sounds like apologetics to me.

Please don't quote me out of context.

The left-wing carry public ownership of the factors of production as a key political aim.

Or are you saying Labour are not left wing?

The BNP campaigned on nationalisation and economic protectionism.

Ergo, policies of the left to attract left-wing voters.

The fact Labour have only managed to nationalise the entire rail network before the banks is not a monument to the fact that new Labour do not nationalise industry.

They did and they do.

I've never seen any sensible party on the right.

You seem to be suggesting that sensible parties on the left campaign on mass nationalisation and protectionism. Who, precisely, are you thinking of in this election? Not Labour. Labour are fanatically anti-protectionism; the BNP attack them for being so.

Where is Labour mass nationalisation? The nationalising of Northern Rock (supported by the Tories), the partial nationalising of failing banks (again, supported by the Tories).

Aside from that, only two things have been nationalised since 1997: Railtrack into National Rail (which is an arms-length corporation) and the old Silverlink line in North London, which Ken managed to claw back into TfL's network. (I believe that it is run privately but under TfL's control.)

The important thing is to find ways of connecting with alienated voters. This in incumbent upon both Labour and Tory. Please stop being silly. Perhaps you could contribute any interesting policy ideas instead ... (Or most likely, not.)

Nothing new here. Remember the Judean People's Front? Or was it the People's Front of Judea?

"Unite Against Facists". Nutjobs who do not appreciate the delicious irony of their name and methods.

Michael,

The BNP campaigned on mass nationalisation and protectionism.

I've never seen any sensible party on the right campaign on these economic arguments.

The left on the other hand though....

Their overall national vote went up Peter so I'll leave the apology on ice. It also inconvientently removes the 'stay at home' argument as 100% the reason for their election.

The reason they got elected in their region was down to stay at home voters and people voting for the BNP.

As for downplaying the reactionaries, I think you will find it very difficult to convince others that Labour's own reactionary language in the first place and the desertion of their core vote wasn't to blame for their election.

Brilliant post Michael. I agree with every word of it. You should write a diary about how to connect with those disaffected voters.

Wrong.

The BNP does not support nationalisation and higher taxation. Nor is it "Old Labour" because like all fascist parties it doesn't much like the unions. Grow up.

Except that any history book will tell you he DIDN'T actually make the trains run on time - it was a PR line. The point about the Italian railway system was that it had fallen into disrepair in WW1. It was restored somewhat after the war,but there is no proof anywhere that the timetables worked any better after Mussolini than before.

It's not nit picking to point this out - fascists of all stripes often claim they will make things more efficient but rarely do.

Really don't bother Peter. There are a bunch of people who like to come here and bang on and on (and on and on) about the BNP being socialists. This is based on two things:

1) the appearance of the word socialism in National Socialism
2) the fact that the BNP have nabbed popularist policies from what we generally call the left, and then taken them to an unworkable extreme

This argument involves ignoring:
1) the apperance of the word National in National Socialism
2) the fact the BNP have nabbed popularist policies from what we generally call the right as well, and taken them also to an unworkable extreme

You will just get caught in a time wasting argument about who is to blame for the rise in support for the BNP.

As you rightly point out, the NF/BNP have enjoyed surges in popularity under both Labour and Tory. Most often, the fiercest resistance and protest against parties which are (rightly or wrongly) labelled 'far right' comes from those on the left. Mike Thomas makes that point in his criticism of the Unite Against Facism leader, calling him 'hard left'. Note that even Nick Griffin identifies his opponents in the video footage as 'the left'.

So, neither the sensible majority nor the BNP themselves believe them to be socialists. Let it end there.

What is important is that both Tory and Labour (and the LibDems) get back appealing to that alienated 1m of the electorate who vote BNP. As much as I dislike the Tories, I would have been happier seeing those 1m votes go to them.

Previously, in 1979 and 1997, the change of Government has followed a swing in support from the working class. In 1980s, Thatcher appealed to individualistic Essex man (as it was described). In 1990s, Blair appealed to with the offer of social mobility amd equal opportunity.

Cameron has done nothing to court the working class vote. Perhaps he thinks it beneath him. Perhaps he wasn't aware of a social tier beneath the small business owner. Gordon took the working class vote for granted and lost (some of) it with the 10p tax rate debacle. We need to offer something better than simply pointing out (rightly) that the shadow cabinet are ex-Etonians who really aren't fussed about (or even aware of) the state of life for the poor and working class in the UK. A negative stance like that will backfire (again). We need a positive message. If Labour has nothing to offer them (and surely it has), then those votes will (deservingly) go to the Tories.

Few of these 1m voters will vote BNP in the General Election; the only advantage of first past the post voting is that it makes the chances of a BNP MP minute.

One of the main parties must find a policy platform on which to connect with these voters. I would prefer it to be Labour; I would settle on the Tories. Just don't let it be the BNP.

My god. I think I've rarely see three comments in succession that compress so much historical ignorance into so few words. You guys should win a prize for that. Perhaps we should call it the Enoch Powell award.

Thank God the left, from Cable Street through Rock Against Racism, to Searchlight, have had the guts and temerity to take on the fascists. You guys would just roll over.

Sometimes it's better to remain silent, and let people think you're really an idiot, than to reply to my post, and remove all doubt.

I've followed the NF, Combat 18 and the BNP for many years now, and you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. The NF was actually more popular in the 70s, and mainly fuelled by the likes of Enoch Powell.

But there you go: just make your baseless assertions and put your ignorance on display.

Personally, I think it's a form of apologism to use a fascist organisation for cheap political point scoring. But you've done it before and you'll do it again.

Tripe.

Mike

I think I'm due an apology - the BNP vote went down
From the BBC

Mr Griffin was elected to Brussels even though the BNP polled fewer votes in the region than it had in 2004 - the slump in Labour support meant its share of the vote increased.



In Yorkshire and Humberside the BNP vote fell from 126,139 to 120,139, a drop of 6,444.

In the NE the BNP vote went up slightly from 50,249 to 52,700 an increase of 2,451 which is 0.06% of the electorate.

So a net drop, no?

You can have whatever opinion you like of the UAT, but these groups have played an important role in the past. Having been brought up in North London during the NF days (and been beaten up by skinheads), I have no illusion about the way the BNP operates. Part the reason the far right has been suppressed are groups like Searchlight who have risked life and limb exposing far right hate literature, intimidation and violence. Look a Griffin's minders and you'll have some idea of the modus operandi of the BNP - modelled of course on the Nazis.

I'm actually rather impressed that young activists, mainly students by the look of it, had the bravery and organisation to stop Griffin claiming the legitimacy of the mother of Parliaments.

You disagree, and instead of emphasising how dangerous to democracy their exclusionary racist message is, you chose a cheap tactic of making it all Brown's fault. Short memories indeed. The NF was on the rise in the 60s, when both Labour and Conservatives were in power, and fuelled by the speeches of Enoch Powell. So your ridiculous supposition this is 'all Labour's fault' is either just plain ignorance, or something worse. Let's not play games over fascism

The problem as I see it is a failure of the three main parties to engage in a decent and sensible discussion about immigration, from our historical points of immigration such as the Indian sub-continent and Africa, but also from the poorer bits of Europe.
I aim to keep this apolitical but my reading of history is that, after successfully tarring the Tories as the ‘nasty party’ in the late nineties, Labour could continue to suppress debate on race and immigration by shouting ‘racist’ and invoking the image of Norman Tebbit as soon as the subject was broached; consequently the Tories shied away from discussion of immigration and we have what we have now: A significant section of the population who feel overwhelmed by the changes that have happened in their local areas and the unwanted nature of that change.
I would think that the issues besetting northern England are more related to a distrust of Islam post-9/11 and the fact that families of Pakistani or Bangladeshi families have more children, so the generational change is a much faster growth rate; I’m ill-informed on this but I don’t know of any “little-Poland’s” in the North as we have in Peterborough.
But the Peterborough case should serve as an example: Suddenly half the town seems to have been overwhelmed with Polish men and Polish families; whilst they are not shy of hard work and pay their taxes, their being here does have a cost in provision for schooling and other local services. It’s a fairly impenetrable language, but some schools have gone from a typical mix of mainly white kids with a few from other backgrounds to classes of half direct from Poland with a basic grasp of English - a massive burden on the local school service. But the other side is that these families, for the most part, aren’t here forever; they can save hard and go back to Poland in five years with a quality of life the equivalent of cash millionaires here. This is particularly true of the men who come here leaving their families back home, thus they can undercut the local tradesmen to the point where it’s impossible to earn a living wage. It’s this type of unfettered freedom of movement which is playing directly into the hands of the BNP.
The argument of the next general election will come down to EU membership. Personally, I’m in favour of a common market of goods and services, but as a country we should be able to decide who comes here on a visa basis, both from within and outside the EU. Should the Tories seize this and offer a referendum, it would pretty much guarantee most of the UKIP vote moving to Cameron. Whatever happens, Labour will be in opposition in the next parliament, and as soon as this one is over, it should take on the mantle of opposition in both hands and hold the new government to account a hell of a lot better than the Tories did with Blair.

This nasty party will not get far once they are amonst a huge E U parliament, they will be drowned out, what if he was pelted with eggs so what, he sets his skin head thugs on people , this racist party has no place in modern Britain, but alas they were voted in by a democratic process.

Peter

It must be hard to accept the facts at the end of your nose comrade, but this is the price you pay for your worthy socialist agenda. You simply forgot who pays the price.

Griffin won almost half as many votes as your man.

The way to combat the BNP is to get rid of the most unpopular PM since records began, put your party through a REAL renewal process, not the brown version and turn your voters back on.

You can twitter and bicker all you like on here (only about 200 people read this) but unless you lot do something now, we are going to be looking at BNP MPs in Westminster in less than a year. I am going to have to listen to these people on the news every night for years to come.

This will be Gordon Browns legacy and the country will never forgive you.

So because you cannot defeat their ideas (and you should be able to) you try to suppress them in other ways eg banning them from some occupations because of their political views. I detest what the BNP stand for but your cack handed attempts at suppression will backfire

Take away the racism and the anti-gay bigotry and you would have a set of very supportable traditional Labour policies. But I suppose you could have said something similar about Hitler, after all wasn't it Mussolini who made the trains run on time.

These "Unite against Fascists" do not represent me

You will not beat the BNP by denying them the right to speak

They were legally elected (by the system) and by discriminating against them you will increase their publicity and legitimacy in the eyes of the those who already voted for them.

The only way is to defeat them in open debate, because they are now elected they must engage too.

Is it true that "Unite against Fascists" is sponsored by UNITE?

Why is their agenda to stop the debate?

What could possibly be served by "ramping up" the threat of the BNP?

One last thing: when protesters have meted out the same treatment to Labour MP's they have invariably found themselves in court or thumped or both. Yesterday there was little or no police intervention for an obvious breach of the peace from a braying mob...

...and what delicious irony if Mr Griffin MEP had been rescued from the affray by a coloured police officer from the Met

Yes, large state, nationalisation, subsidies...all very old labour. One could say that the BNP do actually have an immigration policy although it is somewhat extreme

The labour vote stayed home because they feel they have only one party that can represent them. What poor education system leads them to believe this?

Why did they feel that Labour has abandoned them and thus they wouldn't vote for them?

If the other parties manage to get "their vote out" and make it count in such circumstances then we all have to live with the consequences

If the Lab our vote hadn't collapsed then the BNP would not have got in.

Peter,

Their vote DID go up.

Like it or not, the BNP have two democratically elected MEPs. Protest is fine, haranguing them and pelting them with eggs is not the way to do. That's just facists on facists.

The co-ordinator of Unite Against Fascism came across as a complete idiot on R4 Today yesterday and it is clearly a hard-left front and anti-democratic tactics.

If Labour had engaged with the BNP, if Labour had listened to its core vote and if Labour hadn't been so quick to rubbish their concerns as racists then the BNP would not find themselves with any kind of mandate and no representation in elected office.

As I said, I think the eggs were wrong; but I would completely defend the rights of noisy protest in this instance. After all, many have tried to engage the BNP in debate. Nick Griffin is regularly hauled over the coals in TV studios (I have no problem with that). But the BNP, like the NF before them, are an intimidating presence on the street: quite apt to turn to violence when the cameras aren't rolling. They also specifically exclude non white members of their party: an politics that is so reductively ad hominem, that precludes rational debate because of ethnic origin, has actually forfeited some of the basic principles of discourse.

Griffin does mind being exposed by debate: it gives him status. You could see that during the interview on Sunday night, as we was surrounded by smirking cohorts of heavies. Make them look cowardly and foolish, or make them reveal their brutality: that is a perfectly acceptable tactic that goes back to the Battle of Cable Street.

In the end the right to protest (without lobbing missiles) and vote with your feet, is as important as free speech. It's moot what the best way to tackle BNP support is - housing I would agree is a key issue. But I personally don't mind their leadership being booed by students. They are serving a democratic function too.

Agreed on the ridicule. But your point about the 'left' is misleadingly simplistic.

Having followed the NF, Combat 18 and the BNP for several years, their leaders (as in Germany) tend to be petit bourgeois with a smattering of Lucan like aristocrats. In Northern England (as with the Front National in Northern France) their support comes from mainly deindustrialised areas of high employment and poverty. True, some of these areas were more likely to vote Labour (though of the right wing unionised kind) but they also draw on a lot of former Powellites and Tory working class voters.

That was Mosley's base in 30s: unemployed or semi skilled worker demanding social intervention, shop keepers and businessmen demanding ethnic purity and no competition from overseas.

So this 'they're all from the left' sounds more parti pri than informed I'm afraid, Max. North London in the 70s was filled with skinheads, and I can tell you they were not natural Labour voters. But thanks to the battle of Cable Street followed by RAR in 1979, London has been a different place.

The BNP are only old Labour with a bit of racism thrown in; which is why it is doubly objectionable. The BNP supports more state intervention, nationalisation, higher taxes and more state spending. They have only won their two seats because of the collapse of the Labour vote.

Many working class former Labour voters now support the BNP because they feel that NuLabour is obsessed with minority issues and takes its traditional supporters for granted.

Thanks for taking the time to unpack that sentence, which I think was not hard to miscontrue.

When you get down to the specifics of those constituencies in the North, I agree with virtually everything you say. I particularly agree that our welcoming attitude (and Blair's policies) to the Poles and Lithuanians and other workers from the 2004 enlargement has been a credit to the nation, a source of dynamism (as with other emigres from the Lombards to the Hong Kong chinese or the Gurkhas), and has won us many friends.

What utter tripe. Their vote hasn't gone up. Great way to combat racist thugs by saying it's all Gordon Brown's fault.

Political analysis like that borders on an apology for fascism.

Thank God most Liberal, Labour and Conservative politicians haven't played that toxic game of pass the bigot.

The Labour Party did appologise to Walter Wolfgang, and Walter is now a member of the Labour Party NEC (elected by the membership in a free secret ballot).

Absolutely,
The BNP are a bit like an onion with lots of layers. There are a lot of people associated with the outer layers who really don’t understand the true meaning of the BNP, these are the kind of people the BNP needs to make it look respectable, their very down to earth people and fully paid up members of the human race.

I wouldn’t use the term right; remember that a lot of people who voted BNP are disgruntled former Labour voters who would consider themselves to be socialists.

Anybody who’s an active member of a political party knows the value of going to an election hustings, theirs a polarisation which motivates Labour supporters to go out and campaign for the Labour candidate and equally motivates Conservatives to campaign for their candidate, regardless of who wins the debate. Debating with the BNP creates the same them and us which inevitably sucks their weaker supporters in.

She's just figuring that out now, when we've all been anticipating it for the last 12 years?

And did the socialist workers go home and cry to their mothers??

Griffin would love to go onto QT. If it didn’t go his way then he would probably storm of and say that the major parties and media elite are ganging up on him. If it did go his way then he would gain legitimacy from it. Hence you can’t win the debate, even if you have the better or more logical argument.

Engaging with them is akin to inviting Al-Qaeda to launch successive terrorist attacks because we have the security infrastructure to stop them. The BNP only have to win once.

Glenda Jackson: How to beat the fascists? Build houses
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/glenda-jackson-how-to-beat-the-fascists-build-houses-1700173.html

More importantly when is New Labour going to take responsibilty for the success of the BNP?

For years anyone that wanted to discuss immigration was automaticaly slapped down as a racist,meanwhile we have had an immigration free for all, an additional 3 to 4 million increase in our population in almost as many years, minimal integration,overcrowding,a massive strain on local communities ,education etc and for good measure failed multiculturalism rammed down our throats.

I'm not usually a fan of PR systems etc. And I just threw in the recall comment because it’s an interesting hypothesis, again I don’t like recall systems because they force politicians to make short term decisions.

For the European elections, we use the d'hondt method which is Godfrey Bloom’s favourite voting system (I wonder why?). In Northern Ireland they use STV, which allows you to keep expressing preferences for every party apart from ones you find abhorrent. If this was used on Thursday then I and the vast majority of northwest Labour voters would have seen my unused vote transfer around until eventually the greens would probably have got it.

There is something to be said for using STV as a way to ensure that any candidate doesn’t just have a plurality of the vote, but commands broad support from those who aren’t prepared to vote for them. I might not vote Tory but I have broad support for my Tory MEP’s, and Tory voters have broad support for Labour MEP’s. Neither Labour nor Tory voters have any support for my newest MEP.

"Every other political party holds views which are controversial, and its part of a democratic society that people are welcome to use peaceful demonstration when they disagree with the views of the Labour, Conservative of Lib-Dem party."

Don't be stupid. The Labour Party used anti-terrorist legislation to arrest people wearing tee-shirts with slogans about the war who strayed too close to conference, and the Labour Party's own employees muscled an elderly man out of the building for having the temerity not to chant praise for the great helmsman. The Labour Party can criticise the BNP on this topic when it apologises to Walter Wolfgang. Until then, it's got nothing to be proud of.

Now, I'm just off to read up on the Labour Party using police to arrest climate change protestors...lie about the levels of injury in order to paint protestors as violent when in fact it's policemen who can't get a botle of sunscreen open...oh look, there's the Labour Party making excuses in parliament for the police killing a newspaper seller at a demo...how's the kettling policy going...

It was an absurd ban and of course it backfired, because with professional actors "playing" IRA men they could express the nuances of what the IRA men had said much more eloquently, and probably put their "case" over better for them than they could have done themselves.

Public support isn't what makes a viewpoint legitimate. The North will never support a United Ireland, but it doesn't mean it should be illegal to have that view so long as you don't impose it on the people of Northern Ireland by force.

The IRA dropped the terrorism when the best way to achieve their aims was at the ballot box. Sinn Fein became respectable because the IRA entered a cease fire.

The only terrorists left in Northern Ireland are a bunch of head cases such as the realIRA.

I think reading my post you might struggle to find the part where I endorsed shouting at him and throwing eggs - the confrontation I was referring to was that in the video included in the post.

Talk about scum wearing a coat of respectability...

We all know Griffin is abhorrent but who’s causing more damage to British political system The BNP or the Labour party.

YOU lot are in no position to preach, its your policies that have pushed people to vote BNP.

YOU are to blame, YOU are the cause, THEY are merely the symptom of Your failed policies.

Well done those protesters I say on showing Nick Griffin what a tolerant society we have that believes in individual rights, freedom of speech and peaceful protest.

Effectively that group of people have just managed what Griffin couldn't have managed with a million pounds worth of advertising, he can now turn around and shout "hypocrits!", he has the proof of just how tolerant we are as a nation and how much we value our democracy.

A more productive route would have been a peaceful protest surrounding him, complete silence but holding placards saying 'Hope not Hate', but kicking cars? Throwing eggs? What was it that John Prescott said when that lady from Plane Stupid threw custard all over Peter Mandleson again?

No I take you're point. I agree there defeat must come from argument and voter turn out will go up because of that.

Bear in mind in terms of vote numbers the BNP didn't go up. So actually, despite most of what I've said on this thread, the aim isn't to win back BNP voters but to mobilise those who are just to disaffected to care.

Expose and ridicule yes. Once something is absurd it loses it's power.

Let's not get in to the left vs right debate. I think BNP votes hail from particular demographics and we should bear that in mind when tackling them. I'm sure there are BNP voters who previously voted for Lady T.

No I don't think you need to produce BNP lite policies e.g. anti-immigration policies to take away the BNP swing.

The BNP uses issues like unemployment to demonise minorities. It's an easy argument to communicate

"You are unemployed because foreigners have taken your job"

It's wrong but it sounds plausible. Crucially, it take a sentence to explain and is memorable.

In this case we need to address the underlying concern which is jobs and explain what we'd do and why we're differnt to the Labour party. You explain you're policy in terms of what it means to them; because not everyone is obsessed by politics as us. All politics is local and you need to treat it as such.

The fact is they do have a choice but the differences are in not WHAT we want to achieve but HOW we will achieve them, that's much subtler than ever before. So we need to express them clearly and categorically. And writing clever Guardian editorials or appearing on QT won't do we need to actually speak with people face to face. The BNP is politiking in an old school way on the pavements and soap boxes and it's necessary our voices be heard there too.

I think the left and right wing parties have ignored sections of the electorate because they don't represent the all important middle England vote. Consequently, they feel ignored and understandably so. The concerns we're ignoring aren't really about immigration but about jobs, services etc etc and if there are concerns about immigration we should be there addressing them.

The working class remark I don't feel is patronising. These are just convienant wrappings that allow you to speak about demographics. My family is working class I don't have a problem with it. I won't start talking of how 'ard we have it oop North I promise.

Okay you don't like the word but the point is the BNP target areas where there is poverty, where there are people doing unskilled to semi-skilled work and where there has been a large influx of immigrants. If we don't accept that and don't focus our attention in the same way they do then we're in trouble.

If we just look homogenous, which we're not, then democracy loses. That's why I'm skeptical of an establishment vs the BNP stance.

As for immigration and cultural diversity I'm with you all the way. Look at the recent influx of Polish workers. In many countries there would have been riots I'm very proud we're that adaptable. Indeed, I wanted to vote UKIP on the EU on Thursday but was unable to as their immigration policy is to draconian.

One thing we should discuss is integration; but that's another story for another time. The problem, at least I don't think, is in London it's specifically up here in the North of England where we don't really have an ethnic mix as such rather we have a large "white" population and large Pakistani populations living side by side. There perhaps not the sophisiticated cosmopolition approach seen in London; more a us and them mentality on both sides. It's not open hostility just a lack of mixing. The answers to this probably lie with time and further immigration. Now in Middlesbrough I see black people, Polish people etc etc. Bizzarly perhaps more immigration lubricates integration.

Still another story for another day.

Well said, Alan Giles. Griffin loves every minute of this. The more things like this occur, the more the media stick a microphone in front of him and allow him to complain about it. His fellow candidates made the same mistake on the election night when they walked off stage when he spoke. Again, it gave him the opportunity to opine that they were sticking their noses up to the electorate and damaging democracy, which they were.

There are people out there who have only voted BNP because they claim to be fed up with the current political class. It should be Labour's mission to persuade these people back to Labour. By condemning the BNP as an aberration or trying to silence Griffin, those who voted for him are by extension silenced. I suspect not all BNP voters are like the BNP itself. Mr Giles has it right: "People like Griffin condemn themseleves out of their own mouths - give them enough rope and they will hang themselves."

I agree with 1-3. All I'm doing is adding...

4. The right to protest against his racist policies.

We both know that Griffin is not up for real serious debate. As you point out, the important thing is to peel away the (smaller numbers) of people who voted BNP this election. Given that his policies condemn whole groups without recourse to rational debate or elective opinion (you can't decide not to be' non caucasian') there is also a role for protest and demonstration: i.e. people voting with their feet rather than just their voices.

For that reason, I wouldn't condemn the anti fascists in this instance. They're also serving a democratic function.

I agree with Phil as like it or not the best part of 1 million people voted for the BNP on thursday and they may interpret what just happened as an attack on themselves.

By the same token I think Cameron's idea of banning al-mujaharoun is wrong. You can't silence or defeat groups you fundamentally disagree with by banning them or shouting them down. Let their ideas be heard and they'll defeat themselves.

Let me say straight away I am revolted by the BNPa dnwhat it stands for BUT - but - do we live in a democracy, or don't we?. We do, of course, and surely that means people have the freedom to state their views, however repulsive and ugly they may be to the rest of us. Pelting people with eggs is a silly juvenille thing to do, redolent of the most asinine form of student protest.

People like Griffin condemn themseleves out of their own mouths - give them enough rope and they will hang themselves.

I took great exception to Blair's warmongering, and his constant lying through his teeth, but I would never have dreamt of throwing eggs at him.

The idiots doing this to Griffin will make his supporters even more strident and they will view him as a hero.

How can you possibly know what the BNP stands for when they are physically preventing them from talking? All I saw on the BBC footage was a man attempting to say something, and by a bunch of vigilantes denying him drowning him out and intimidating him.

The BNP may be vile but they're not stupid enough to send in the Brown Shirts. So the entire incident plays into their hands, and makes the anti-fascist protesters look like the thugs.

The BNP's entire strategy is to persuade the white working class they have been betrayed by the liberal elite. They want people angry with mainstream politicians to think that "people like us" are denied a platform. This is propaganda coup for the BNP.

"There do seem to be a significant number of BNP voters now who genuinely don't realise it is a racist, facist party.."

Dont believe that for one second. They are targeting the working classes and the people who vote for them know exactly what they're getting. The dividing line between fascism and socialism is the width of a human hair. You'd have to be a blind imbecile not to know of the racist agenda.

Isn't the problem that a sizeable number of BNP voters are sick of the 'big 3 parties' (and yes I know Labour more than the other 2) and so any greater efforts on their part will be counter productive.

Jon Cruddas in The Guardian seems to suggest this -

Their (the BNP) failure to exploit these unique circumstances was in no small part due the mass mobilisation of opposition to them on the ground; a new politics of "Hope not Hate" forged beyond the Westminster beltway with unions, churches, voluntary groups, students and sometimes local political parties.

He goes on to set out the role of the 3 main parties as he sees it -

Yet the campaign cannot build houses and reduce waiting lists; it cannot prevent undercutting and the abuse of migrant workers. Local anti-fascist movements cannot get resources into communities, often the poorest, dealing with extraordinary levels of migration. Without such resources access to public services is racialised and politics becomes more tribal. The "Hope not Hate" campaign cannot reduce health inequalities or enduring poverty and immobility. It cannot overcome political disenfranchisement and alienation from interchangeable Westminster politicians. In short, it cannot substitute for what a radical Labour government should be doing and a language that it should be using that could inspire hope.

Fabulous !:)

I think thr vast majority of people would turned off by that sort of talk, protest vote or no protest vote. This time around the big 3 parties didnt put enough effort in to stating the obvious, next time round will be different I hope.

We've got 2 tangible targets to concentrate on, their own records are full of nasty stuff for us to show the public.

I was completely calm, but I still think your statement about the 'working classes' was patronising and perplexing at the same time.

BNP support is clearly a regional problem these days, especially in former industrial and mill areas of the North which have both substantial Asian minorities AND high poverty and employment (Hull might be different though). There's nothing patronising in that: just an observation of competition over scarce resources. I recognise there are real problems there; but they are quite specific, and an appeal to the 'working classes' helps no more than an appeal to 'Anti Jihadism'.

But my real issue is your statement they need a 'relevant choice' between right and left. Don't they have that? The only way I can really understand what you're saying here is that there's too much 'consensus' on things like immigration and anti racism.

Forgive me if I've got this wrong, but until you explain better it's the rational assumption one can make: more anti-immigration policies are needed on the right to peel off the disaffected anti-foreigner vote. To me I'm afraid, that's really nasty slippery slope.

Tories, Liberals and Labour alike have fought for years, especially since the Scarman report, to reduce racial tension in this country. Compared to the apocalyptic predictions of 60s and 70s, we've achieved a remarkable amount. London particularly has become famous as one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world, with more interracial couples than Brazil. Given the fact that half of all Londoners have a grandparent born outside England, it's a remarkably harmonious heterogenous mix of people.

That's a precious prize we should never give up. Letting the BNP shift the ground on race and nationality would be appeasement.

Much of the action seen in the video, and the way he was "escorted" to his car, was pretty violent and intimidating if you ask me.

At the end of the day, it just isn't the way forward. The way to defeating the BNP is through bridging the gap between the people who voted for them and those who can see them for what they are, because 6.2% of the British population cannot be racist (I hope). Put yourself in the position of someone who voted BNP (God forbid) for a moment: you've just seen a politician you elected, entirely legitimately, forcibly heckled from giving a speech and "no-platformed". You are, presumably, angry that someone you chose to represent you was denied the right to talk on your behalf. Now, the protesters in the video might be cheering, but all they've done is alienated BNP voters.

If they'd heckled him verbally with legitimate protests (shouts of racist for example, preferably backed up with some of the many pieces of evidence he's given to support the fact) and questioned him and argued against him throughout, he would have been shown up to be a racist and a fraud, and humiliated far more effectively than he was by being forced back to his car. The hecklers could even have offered some alternatives as to what the mainstream parties are doing to tackle the issues on which he's winning votes, and to listen to the people. That might have won round some voters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: reasoned argument and political cleanup.

That's a good idea for protecting Westminster from them. Many of the people interviewed by the BBC in the NW were ashamed they didn't vote. So a BNP win could be turned around.

Under a PR system like the EU elections there would be the possibility of permanent recall and election.

I had an interesting debate about this with a Polish chap I work with. He's of the opnion Britain should, like much of central Europe, ban overtly fascist parties.

I don't agree because I think the risk is it can be drive underground and form an almost cult like status. Attempts have been made in the past to ban Communists and Fascists and it's not a guarantee of success.

In the 1930's the Black Shirts where banned from wearing uniform with some success.

I'd be interested to hear if anyone thinks legislating against them makes sense.

If they are a legitinate party you cant prevent access to the public.

They now have funding from the EU and a right to publicise themselves.

Horrible though it is, they are part of the democratic structure of the UK and EU. So eith ban them or take them on democratically and beat them.

Playing student politics with "no platforms" and protests wont achieve much

Free speech and the right to protest are one and the same thing really. If we remember that I suppose the balance will find itself.

These idiots have just got the BNP and Nick Griffin first item on the Radio 4 PM programme and Griffin is milking it.

This is just the sort of publicity that the BNP live off.

Yes you can debate them, just as I debated the socialist Workers and made them look stupid.

All you need to do is ask whether a BNP member believes a person of Asian decent born in Britain is "British" and he's stuck.

These people aren't intellectual giants you know.

Griffen on QT would be a disaster for his party. Read out the party policy on race, discuss his previous convictions and behaviours and let people see.

'Debate' is a wide term. I'd prefer ridicule, exposure and disparagement. Intellectually, fascism is as rigorous as a marshmellow.

I should point out, however, that recent events demonstrate that the BNP's voters (actual and potential) hail predominantly from the left. And always have.

The IRA had a legitimate viewpoint?

Forcing a united Irleand on the North irrespective of what the public wanted was their viewpoint.

They didn't just drop the terrorism when Sinn Fein became "respectable"

Well that would be nice, but unfortunately wouldn't solve the problem. We need other parties to offer a credible, trustworthy alternative which asks the people where they stand on controversial issues like the EU and multiculturalism. We play into Griffin's hands if we no-platform him and ignore the reasons why people voted BNP; and I don't think it was just a protest vote (there are plenty of other parties to vote for in protest), it was a vote partly based on policy. Yes, we have to educate people on the many darker aspects of BNP policy (and indeed the generally sinister nature of the party as a whole) but we also have to pick up on the milder policies which made people vote for them, and if necessary adopt them into the main parties if that is what the people want.

It's very tempting to quickly oust extremist parties using sometimes questionable tactics, but we mustn't sink to their level. The BNP can only truly be defeated by reasoned argument, the exposure of their bigotry and racism and an understanding of what made some voters support them. When people are being driven to extremes, we know there's something wrong with the main parties.

I know an egg or a car kick is nothing a normal politician might expect I'm just worried how it will be used.

Despite my misgivings I had to smile as he was chased to his car.

Excellent post. There do seem to be a significant number of BNP voters now who genuinely don't realise it is a racist, facist party, and it's hard not to see that as partly the result of the media's approach of trying to ignore them. Were Griffin interviewed more often and confronted like this, surely it would undermine their support.

"instead they go one step further; they turn it into a Jewish conspiracy"

Interesting point.

I understand how extremist parties gain support by scape goating problems. The Jews, immigrants, kulaks etc etc. But I could never understand why deny something that's patently untrue that will attract ridicule; even if you where antisemitic it doesn't make sense.

But turn it in to a consipracy and you've got another way to attack Jews and strip away sympathy.

Thanks for that reply it was an eye opener.

I wasn't referring specifically to the eggs (most politicians actually deserve a good tarring and feathering, but that's another story) - and I support the right to protest - as vociferously as possible. We should, however, avoid giving him the ammunition of saying that he is being 'hounded' and his freedom of speech 'curtailed'. (Additionally, it would really be a shame to have to pay for phalanxes of police officers to accompany him everywhere - especially as it would be the poor police who would be caught in the middle of every melee and mini-riot).

The answer is threefold:
1) to have him hang himself with his own tongue;
2) refute and argue the case against him at any and every opportunity; and
3) address the real and present grievances of those of our fellow citizens who, having lost faith in the mainstream parties, voted BNP.

The flawed policy of ignoring him (aka 'not giving him a platform') has demonstrably failed. This evil thug needs to be confronted, engaged and exposed at every opportunity. He should be torn apart with sweet reason and humanity.

It is only in this way that many of those who voted for the BNP will return to the mainstream.

I write all this as someone who - apart from the basic morality of the matter - has very personal reasons for not wanting Nazis in Britain.

I think Thatcher's ban misfired completely, though it did provide lots of work for actors who could imitate Northern Irish accents.

I believe in the right to free speech, and the right to protest. Those are the balance of forces at play here.

No that's not what I'm saying and I think you need to calm down.

I think they've swung to the BNP because they believe all the major political parties are the same and don't represent their views adequatly. The BNP pretends to represent their views to secure their vote for their own ends.

We therefore need to provide the working class with left and right wing policies that are relevant and offer them a choice.

I don't believe the people who have swung to the BNP did so because they are fascists or holocaust denyers. If you believe they are perhaps you're the one who is being partonising.

The BNP hoodwinks people in to voting for it and they do so out of frustration.

That was my point.

I have never and will never defend the BNP.

Well, a mistimed kick and a few eggs hardly make for martyrdom. I get your point, but I also think its heartening for substantial minorities in this country (probably a large one given the BNPs strange 'Caucasian' ethnic identity) to know that Griffin is loudly and roundly condemned.

Perhaps we need to borrow a Lib-Dem policy of recalls in order to democratically sack him?

The difference with the IRA of course is that their terrorism was an expression of a legitimate viewpoint. Once the republican movement shed their terrorism, they were welcome to air their legitimate views.

The BNP are no different to Al-Qaeda, once you take away the vial fascist views then you will find there’s nothing left.

My concern is the BNP has come up with ways of masking it's real policies in a way the national front never really did. That needs exposing.

If the BNP is disrupted lawfully I'm fine with that. Chucking eggs, kicking car etc has apparently given him air time on the BBC where he talked of the demonstrators as fascists. That's air time where he's not really being challenged on his views it's just an opportunity to condemn the views of others, namely the activists.

It's sad to see people lowering themselves to Griffin's level by throwing eggs at him... He may be a racist scumbag, but he was democratically elected, and taboo as it may be to say this, the BNP does have some things right. A lot of people don't want multiculturalism, the EU etc. and do want to put Britain first and be listened to by politicians.

Victory over the BNP must be achieved by a return to respectable, clean politics and through the main parties listening to voters and adapting to their needs.

Didn’t Thatcher’s hard line with the IRA eventually bring them to the negotiating table?

It’s easy to point to the Good Friday agreement & St Andrews Agreement. It’s easy to say that a political solution eventually brought about peace in Northern Ireland.

Without Thatcher’s hard line there would never have been an incentive for the IRA to join the negotiating table. The IRA was put in a position where it could either find a political solution, where Sinn Fein exercise significant power in Stormont, or they could have carried on planting bombs that didn’t achieve anything but bloodshed.

I seldom agree with Mrs T, but I entirely agree with her that murders and those who want to undermine our free and democratic society should be denied a place from which to speak.

Have you watched the BBC video?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091605.stm

Egg throwing is unnecessary, but chants and disruption of a news conference outside Parliament (he's not sitting there) is the right to protest, itself part of freedom of speech. Griffin was surrounded by skinhead bouncers and press photographers. He wasn't in great physical danger. When he scuttled off, I cheered with the protestors I'm afraid. He has plenty of platforms on which to speak. I don't see why anti-fascists can't protest. This isn't making him a martyr, anymore than John Prescott was for having an egg thrown at him.

Some people are manipulative. People like Griffin and Irvin probably know that the holocaust did happen, they also agree with the holocaust and its aims.

Because the holocaust is the most horrific event in European history and the vast majority of people are entirely horrified by the very concept of genocide. And because the holocaust is part of the school curriculum across the western world, serving as a warning of where fascists want to take us. Fascists have a choice in how to approach the holocaust.

Fascists could choose not to talk about the holocaust, which would make sense because its hardly fascisms best selling point. But instead they go one step further; they turn it into a Jewish conspiracy. How better to advance the cause of fascism then to make an entire race of people out to be behind a conspiracy.

You're second point is a bloody good one. But there is no need to debate Griffin's ideas as the minute there properly exposed he'll lose support. He's had to wrap his ideas up in softer words to sell them.

Also, I should note that when I say engage with the BNP what I mean is on the doorstep. You engage with the people who the BNP target, counter their views and educate them to their policies.

We'd maybe agree on violence or egg throwing: not on lobbying to stop them having access to a broader public. Thatcher talked about depriving terrorists of the oxygen of publicity. She used the law in a ludicrous and counter productive fashion with the Provisional IRA. I'm happy to support activists who disrupt the BNP in lawful ways.

Griffin is scum - dangerous scum - but he should not be made into a martyr.

A small but not insubstantial minority of electors voted or the BNP - for a variety of reasons - and it would be worse than a blunder to treat them all the same as Griffin and his core of wannabe Brown Shirts.

Like it or not, he and his party were democratically elected. And it is the sphere of non-violent democratic discourse - arguing the case against his half-baked brand of National Socialism with conviction, passion and lots of ridicule - that he and his like will be defeated.

I agree. There's no point debating the BNP. But they use the 'multiculturalism' issue to their own ends, and other people fall for the rhetoric. It's definitely worth debating their potential voters or fellow travellers on the right. It's also worth pointing out how, without realising it, so many commentators decrying 'political correctness' actually give the BNP some succour.

In fairness Peter I don't think Guy is saying people shouldn't have a right to protest just that there is a danger, if the protest go in the mans words "beyond his nose", such as chucking an egg at him that he can claim he's pro-free speech whereas his opposition are anti-free speech.

I think in fact yourself and Guy M are agreeing.

Violence is one thing, and should not be tolerated (unless in self defence) but why not unite
against them? Free speech cuts both ways. And this is pure patronising idiocy:

The working classes deserve a left wing and right wing choice that's relevant to their own lives.

Brilliant. So repatriation and holocaust denial is relevant to 'working class' lives. Labour, Liberal and Conservative should back off, and allow more 'choice' of racism? Why not a misogynist party then? Or perhaps a paedophile one? That would give more choice.

Ridiculous. Though they mask it with bland policy statements, the BNP actively deny non Caucasians a right to join their party, and their thugs regularly target people for intimidation and worse. As a racist organisation they constitute a physical threat to large segments of the UK population; as Fascist in the German rather Italian mode they are apologists for the nightmare of the Holocaust, something still in living memory; and now they seem to have drawn a defence from other people on the right. Why?

I loathe the BNP and racism isn't free speech it's racism but why on earth do we think Nick Griffin held a press conference
outside the Commons? Because he wanted this to happen. I have just watched him talking on BBC about the fascists (The cheek
of it is unbelievable) who blocked his free speech. He wants to seem like the underdog, it's how fascism thrives and I am
sorry to say that anyone who threw anything at him helped rather than hindered the BNP cause today!

There’s not debate to be had over his policies:

1) His policies are to remove the right of debate.
2) His debating tactics are to move the goal posts at every move. Like a Trotskyite, Fascists will never let you win the debate because they will always adjust the boundaries and use the whole exercise to make the person arguing with them look small and naïve. To be fair, anybody who meets a Fascist in a debate is naïve.

I honestly can't understand why anyone would deny the holocaust.

If Nick Griffin thinks that he's running a legitimate party then he would be delighted to allow people to protest against his views. Every other political party holds views which are controversial, and its part of a democratic society that people are welcome to use peaceful demonstration when they disagree with the views of the Labour, Conservative of Lib-Dem party.

The problem is with the BNP is that they don't think that people should have the right to disagree with them. One of the signatures of the BNP is the way that they take excessive steps against criticism.

In a free and democratic society we are all entitled to air any opinions we want, unless those opinions are to cause serious crimes against humanity or to undermine the rights of others to have their legitimate views.

I don’t condone the throwing of eggs at Nick Griffin; it plays right into his hands. But if he was a legitimate politician then he would support the rights of people to disagree with him.

If you've ever seen the BNP in action, you'd realise that casting them as the victim in this way is patently ludicrous.

There are rights to free speech - on BOTH sides. Since this board is filled with people trying to heckle the Labour Govt, I think it's a bit rich, in the open fora of the street or the hustings, to deny others the right to protest at what the BNP says. It's not as if they have been prevented for running for office. And I really very much doubt that concerted campaigns to disrupt their activities draws a 'sympathy' vote.

I'm all for having the BNP's policies debated, and their underlying attitudes exposed. But democracy cuts both ways: if they're going to speak in public, stop whining about the consequences. And Griffin's explanation of why they only admit 'Caucasians' (I wonder if a part Armenian like myself would get in - considering Armenia is in the Caucasus Mountains) played exactly to the right wing talking points I've heard more toward the centre. He said they would remain a White Party while Black Police Officers organisation remained. (Didn't notice they were a political party?)

Yes, the underlying ideas, especially the cover of attacking 'multiculturalism', needs to be debated vigorously. But short of breaking the law, I don't see why others should banned from trying to disrupt the BNP. Let's not whine on their behalf.

Good on you!

I'm right with you; although of course definatly to the right.

We can beat them. We have to stop pussy footing around and grapple with them. Don't pillory them, don't appear to smear them (difficult task to actually smear but very hard not to look like you are) you engage with them, argue with them and truth will out.

You're totally right Guy.

Violance against him will play in to his hands. It allows him to play the poor me I believe in freedom of speech card.

I also think the idea of parties uniting against them is a bad idea, it gives them the establishment vs BNP card. We need to give voter real choice. The working classes deserve a left wing and right wing choice that's relevant to their own lives.

When the media and the main stream political parties shine a light on the BNP in a way they've been unwilling to do so until now it'll send them scuttling back to the shadows. Getting them on QT would be great. However, we need to remember that's not enough at the risk of sounding condescending I doubt the BNP swing voters (their core vote are another beast entirely) watch QT.

As much as I despise the BNP, Griffin and all it and he stands for, he has got a point about the protests etc.

If the BNP is a legal party (however much most of us wish it would disappear) it can't have its members and elected representatives shouted down, assaulted and harassed if we are to stand up for democracy.

This strikes me as continuation of the rather inane "no platform for fascists" nonsense I used to see at University. I'd prefer to see a BNP member on say Question Time having to defend his party's racist policy in front of the public rather than some undergraduate "activists" deciding who can and who can't speak in a free society. The protest really is juvenile student politics of the worst kind.

The problem from a public point of view is this sort of thing doesn't challenge the BNP over policy but it does leave some members of the public feeling sympathy for the abuse he is receiving.

It is entirely the wrong way to go, the BNP needs its ideas brought into the light and challenged not its members physically harassed.

Now that I am over my MP/election downer, I will dedicate my life to seeing these cretins defeated. I will start with Barking in August. Nothing will prevent me exposing and out-campaigning these utter skum. I am in South Korea and get treated wondefully by the people here because I am British. They really think we are great. And this toilet of a man is an embarresment to all the great things that make us British. Whether you are Liberal/Conservative or Labour we all ascribe to freedom and deomocracy. Thier election is the greatest traversty of British politics and they will be beaten.

That video should be played again and again. I doubt whether any but a tiny proportion of hoodwinked BNP supporters would concur

"This nonsense about gas chambers has been exposed as a total lie..."

6 million killed in living memory, and Griffin says this. May he be hounded forever for his racist remarks, and intolerable anti semitism.