No Platform for anti-fascists?

Watney's Red Barrel, you're showing your age there, I mean obviously I had to look it up.

As a slighty-right-of-centre Europhile (see, they do exist), I am constantly dismayed at how the mainstream parties treat the EU.

Labour seem to use it as a blame detractor, any bad policies they bring in they allow the media to blame on the EU.

Labour have had 12 years, during which they should have made abundantly clear to the EU that we will not pay until their accounts are signed off, and the bureaucracy and corruption cleared up.

Now we are faced with the prospect of a population that wants to leave the EU, and that will damage our interests immeasurably.

Weak willed politicians of the last twenty years are to blame.

"Bolshy Trots"? You been on the Red Barrel again?

So will the BBC pack the audience with people who what to vilify a Labour Minister every time one is one? I would personally love to have a got at the whole shower. Or should this pillory only be reserved fro the BNP

Is it too late for Labour to put up someone decent against Griffin? Jack Straw is just embarrassing.

Mike
Please tell me who are all these parties who want to leave the EU. I only know of two UKIP and BNP. And where is the party that wants to stay in the EU, but advocates democracy, transparency and accountability. There is not one - and least of all Labour.

The status quo in the EU, is in the interests of the political class - a retirement home for unaccpeatble and failed politicians. That is why it never gets changed!

"And again, if people want to leave the EU, then there are parties which advocate that."

Yes, BNP and UKIP.

"But that should not be the policy of the Labour party, because that is not what we believe"

Yes, I realise that, but I want you to help me understand why. What is it that is intrinsic to 'Labour values' that you think requires you to support the EU ?

I take your point Mike, but isn't immigration a form that the free market takes?

The trouble is - take someone with a valid complaint in a low paid job is being told "If you don't like it you can f*** off because I've got two dozen Kosovans outside who'll come and do it for less than you." (This is a real example of someone known to me).

That person says - who can help me here? Saying "Well, it's the free market that's the problem," is like telling the man without the umbrella that the problem is that it's raining.

And yes, being honest, this is made worse because the local authority's support for specific immigrant communities tends to be very noticeable. So you see help being very specifically targeted at people who are being used to reduce your standard of living.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support the BNP. (Actually, I don't think the people I've mentioned do either, its the young that actually vote for them - the older ones just threaten it). But while the left's response to these experiences is to state macro-economic fact, it has a massive problem.

What might have been worth thinking about is a two-tier minimum wage, giving more recognition to skilled labour, and incentivising people to train to get out of the low-pay rut where they're competing with all comers.

Tell me about it. I had breakfast with the guy back in a 90's Euro-election. Guess he too wanted to feel important and be part of a big special club...

Oh, yes, it needs reform but I still think its the only way forward.

I think that I was attracted by some of the NL approach at first and of course being deeply involved in LGB issues I couldn't have asked for much more. But the problem has been that whereas the pragmatic social democratic approach was always to say, yes, markets exist but we are suspicious of them , NL became obsessed with them to the extent that they failed to realise that the City can never be the friend of even the most moderate form of social democracy, and that their interest are the opposite to those of manufacturing.

I do agree that the Tories have even less in their bag of tricks than NL, and what I have to decide is when I should , if at all, go back to the Labour party and try and return it to social democracy

Its the corruption that leaves me sitting on a fence post. When I discovered what the Kinnocks had been up to I sat thinking about it, I'd always liked Neil Kinnock and thought him to be beyond corruption, but he really did mess that up when he went over to the EU.

The thing that makes me stutter when it comes to the EU is the corruption, I've read far too much about it and it disturbs me that we're riding into it without giving it enough thought.

I agree that population control may become a hot topic, maybe not for a while, but it is inevitable as we are, as you say, a small island. The population can't grow beyond a certain point or we'll have to start building upwards.

On whether the South would be prepared to pay, I don't think they would need to Mike. I think there is a way that both North and South can work together on this so no-one has to pay, we can rebuild and everyone gets paid from a clever idea, something that brings in money from exports and loses the idea of subsidy all together. The idea I keep chucking in about power stations might not work brilliantly, but there is something out there, it just hasn't been thought of yet.

In the meantime though we're treading water and rather badly. I had very high hopes in '97 that Labour had the very ideas needed to reverse unemployment, bring about the much needed jobs and wealth for a better society. Its one of the many reasons I get angry with politicians who don't play by the rules or who blatantly lie. If they put half as much effort into thinking about what the country needs, what the people of this country need, we'd be halfway near a solution by now.

Thanks Bill,

Any advice will as always be appreciated.

Oh I did have one chap close the door on me, he said all politicians are Tossers!

Fair enough I don't blame the guy with some of the renewed stupidity we are observing from parliament.

So far they seem to be doing so. For me, Europe definitely is the way forward - but then I am a convinced Europhile, and always have been. Most of us true social democrats are!

The free market economy itself isn't the problem, it's how we control it and mass economic immigration is a result of attempts to drive down wages.

Capitalism is like fire - keep it in the hearth and it'll heat your home, let it run unchecked and it will burn your house to the ground.

I agree it can't be done in isolation. I'm not overly sure whether Europe is the answer or whether it would add to the problem.

Wholeheartedly agree that the tax threshold is far too low and I agree that the available work isn't shared out, but even shared out, it won't create 2 million jobs and thats the magic number. 2 million sustainable and viable jobs that don't diminish existing sectors but add to them and create wealth through export.

I still go back to what I was writing on here about a couple of months back, how many people does it take to build and run a power station? How many could be employed building transport links to those power stations? And how much would mainland Europe pay to import a steady reliable power supply at a reasonable price?

The BNP don't have a foothold on Merseyside yet, but they are gunning for it. They're fielding more candidates there than ever before, I just hope the people of Merseyside can see through it and not join the million already voting for the BNP.

But the problem is not immigration, but the free market base of the economy.

I think people here want those policies. I'm really not convinced that people in the South are prepared to pay for them. This isn't any sort of scientific approach but there appears to be a real difference in attitude.

I also think - very strongly - that we could not rebuild in isolation, and that this has to be something we work out alongside our European socialist colleagues.

Population will be a major issue in the future but this will be about the number of children considered reasonable, more than immigration. Plenty of people come and go and population has not grown all that much overall. Certainly, sustainability will mean a smaller population and to that extent Europe is in a better position than most of the rest of the world

Ralph, keep it up, you're doing really good work, it will make a difference.

I have another strategy for Thurrock btw, but you don't think you'll agree with it. I will email it to you when I'm capable of writing things that make sense, been on the go for too many hours and all that is keeping me awake at the moment is the fascinating comments I'm reading here today.

I agree with you. But the question is - how. It certainly can't be done in isolation. Personally, I think that the only answer has to be to make Fortress Europe an official socialist policy, in order to oppose globalisation - we certainly can't do it alone. I don't think that Little Englandism is at all viable, but a genuinely social Europe certainly is.

The thing is that Merseyside actually is one of the BNP's weakest areas.

One thing which I do think needs to be looked at is the way that we share out available work. There seems to be a lot of people working very long hours and many difficulties in working part time - the very low tax threshold doesn't help.

I need lessons from you in concise, clear and to-the-point writing skills. Excellent comment.

Thats the thing though Mike, immigration wouldn't be the issue it is if Britain had remained Britain. It's not the immigration itself, it is the fact that we have finite resources and public services. Some, not all, are at capacity already and people are not blind, they can see why they are at capacity. Labour deserve credit for attempting to increase capacity, but to increase capacity it requires an increase in staff levels and more efficient systems. I've experienced first hand that the two don't match.

Anyway, getting away from the point. The point I'm trying to make is that we're falling into a pit because we don't really create wealth any more. We swirl money around the country and it dwindles slowly, or quickly if banks are involved, but actually creating exports that will bring in money into the country is virtually non-existant. We have no industry to speak of, no national assets to fall back on (or no major national assets should I say) and people have lost pride and dignity because of it.

That means less money to invest in what is needed. As Clement Attlee promised, Labour should deliver Homes - Jobs - Food and the modern equivalent? Are they delivering any of those? Food I suppose, but its soup kitchen food. They're offering the hand outs of tax credits to the workforce instead of helping them get jobs and making sure the right homes are there.

Discussion and debate is the only thing left to do because Labour, nor the Conservatives for that matter, can resolve the issue. They have no clue how to create 2 million jobs in the economy, no one will invest heavily in good housing stock and eventually the majority of our public services will have to be privatised, so the only method of tackling the BNP head on is politically. Debating and removing the teeth from their arguments.

Apologies for this dancing over issues at breakneck speed, but I'm trying to give you a synopsis of my argument without producing a 5000 word essay. In short, people don't want BNP policies, what they want is Labour policies but not New Labour policies. People want good jobs, good homes and they want to feed themselves. The BNP can't offer that, but unfortunately neither can Labour or the Conservatives. Perhaps people would vote Labour in the future (if Labour can survive the New Labour experiment) if Labour made the same pledge as Clement Attlee made and stuck to it. Then what would the BNP have left? No arguments, just racism, thats all they'd have. For now we have to settle for demolishing their arguments so their racism is exposed.

Can you tell I'm tired btw, I've just read through this and its a right old mish mash. I'm too tired to alter it now, so it will have to stand as it is.

I have dogs (love my dogs), they're usually good judges of character and mostly they just want attention, companionship and love from humans. Plus dogs seem to have an ability to sus out who are and aren't nice people.

So, tell us about the BNP candidate.

For much the same reason that Keir Hardie campaigned against immigration and the dockers supported Enoch Powell after the river of blood speech.

You voted Labour primarily to protect you at work and to help maintain your standard of living when the bosses would effectively try to drive it down. Big waves of immigrant labour keeps wages low and puts pressure on housing stocks and services.

It's a difficult and uncomfortable truth for the left, and a lot of people spend a lot of time denying it. Alas if your actual experience contradicts the denial, then you begin to develop a desire to punish the denier. Until the party comes to terms with this, it's had it.

Hi Ricki
Bit of confusion here - I was replying to Tom, and my first sentence should have been in quote marks. Ta for not judging and yes indeed we are all human - even West Ham fans, so they tell me.
Best wishes.

Bizarrely Mike we're talking about the same patch of ground. I was born in Merseyside, moved away in my early years and returned briefly, learning quickly that the area I was born in had been destroyed by the lack of industrial activity.

I'm not talking necessarily about left-wing economics, or should I say not like they were in the past. Times have changed and the UK can not afford to do what Attlee did (although personally I would very much like that to happen, I know its unrealistic) so there has to be a balance. Unfortunately Labour aren't even thinking about it though which is the disturbing thing. They are not coming up with the ideas needed.

Look at New Brighton for instance. I know it was run down, I know it was never the hotspot holiday destination, but what is it now? A massive housing estate. The fair is gone, the sea front shops gone, everything that was at one time thriving removed to allow developers to build houses without improving the road network or other transport links to match. We're not talking thousands of jobs lost, but I bet it was several hundred lost in that area. Its unrecognisable now.

So you have the houses there, but where are the jobs? What replaced the docks and shipyards? What about the metal industries based up in Sheffield that used to feed the ship builders? How about the coal mines that fed the steel mills? Or the clothing industry in Manchester?

What happened was its all gone abroad at the expense of employment here. We now ship everything in and we're a service-based economy, but we're only a couple of generations from the ship builders, the steel workers and the miners. What employment prospects are there for them in the service based industry? Only so many can stack shelves in warehouses. Not many are employed in transporting goods in comparison to our industrial past. The list can go on and on.

Until a government takes the bull by the horns and admits the problem, the knock on effect will be sink estates, poverty, crime and the rising of political parties which the mainstream will fail to acknowledge. At the minute everyone is up in arms about the BNP, but they are the children of the NF, who will be the grandchildren of the NF?

Make no mistake, unless something is done, unless Labour lose this whole 'No Platform' rubbish, the grandchild will rise up, faster than before. With each generation these people are learning how to manipulate the media, they are adapting policies and trying to appeal to a wider audience with each rebirth. Labour are being short-sighted with this, just as the Conservatives were short-sighted to dismantle our industrial base without having a viable alternative for employing the people displaced. They are the ones that sent people to the welfare camp, they are the people who didn't think, but now Labour, for all its words about the nasty Conservatives are going in the same direction. This time its through inaction rather than actions, and ignorance to a problem that should be sorted by now.

One thing I should add - I think that housing is one of the main problems, and I do think that there needs to be a major social housing programme.

Part of the problem has been that housing regeneration has tended to focus on the private sector, both owned and rented , in recent years, and demographic patterns mean that in many northern cities, the Asian population are far more likely to live in this private housing, with the white working class in council or HA housing. This has not received the same level of attention, which has led to an 'outer estate' problem. The BNP have taken advantage of this.

Last time I voted for you, you "believed" I should have a say over handing sovereignty over to Brussels.

You changed your policy on that pretty sharpish.

Bill,

On an encouraging note those issues are being discussed by Labours candidates in Barking. We have all agreed this evening in one ward to ensure we focus completely on the needs of those we meet on the doorstep. More than ever people need us to be their voice locally.

The much malignied MP here is doing the same thing ensuring she is meeting face-to-face as many people as possible.

The same is happening in Dagenham (and has been for some time) and we are planning our policy priorities on the basis of the needs people make known to us.

The broken ends are being reforged slowly, carefully and with precision. The teams are being set up and I will be canassing in at least two wards here before I begin to help out in Thurrock where Nick Griffin is planning his next move.

I am meeting people and seem to be making a reasonable impression and am finding very quickly that the asian community have exactly the same problems as the non-asian. The risks to both being the same, extemism.

I have just had dinner with an influential figure here in an asian restraunt and we have openly discussed the needs of the community and agreed on a uniform policy programme.

As a result I have been invited to meet more of the muslim community at a meeting and I have accepted the invitation.

So I am campaigning in all areas of the community, white, black, asian, whatever. I am finding similar pictures which if anything should unite us all.

We have simple goals.

We solve the short term issues immediatly with help of councillors and the MP. The long term problems (skills for unemployed) we make priority one on policy.

All issue results are reported back to the people who raised them and the people given the credit for raising the issue.

It works so far....

I am critical of the New Labour obsession with the free market, and think that there are many problems with it. The problem is that what you are suggesting isn't on offer at the moment so its really difficult to tell whether if it was on offer, the support for the BNP would dissipate.

I live in the north and no area suffered more from Thatcherism than mine - I live on Merseyside. And I'm pretty sure that there would be a response to what you propose round here and that most people would agree with it.

What I'm not sure about is whether those views really would win a majority support any more. I fully agree that New Labour has treated its core vote with contempt and has taken their votes for granted, but I'm not convinced that a left-wing stance would win Labour a majority across the whole country. However, I do happen to think it is right....but I'm not sure whether it would be quite as easy to re-create industrial jobs again in a globalised free market. Its not as if we can jump off and absent ourselves from it.

What I do wonder is whether socialist policies would remove all of the BNP vote? I do think that there are people who resent the changes which have happened to the UK and would prefer things to be 'the way they used to be'. This is why the BNP haven't only gained seats in Labour areas. Some of the seats they have won in Essex, Herts, Burnley, Yorkshire are ex Tory areas where the Tories have retreated.

I'm not enthused about the current Labour programme - surely I've made that clear enough? But I'm not convinced that just adopting left-wing economic policies would take away the BNP appeal. Nor do I think that Labour should change their view

For the state to declare an organisation illegal it has to have a better reason than the government doesn't like their agenda.

The current government doesn't like the Conservatives agenda and the next government won't like Labour's agenda.

And again, if people want to leave the EU, then there are parties which advocate that.

But that should not be the policy of the Labour party, because that is not what we believe. So, rise it as an issue all you want, but I do not think that we should change our policy, because to do so would not be true to what we believe.

Why would the British National party be worried about addressing global issues?

If Brown spent a little more time addressing what the people of the UK want rather than trying to make his name as an international statesman, we might have a bit more respect for him.

Thats the trouble though isn't it Mike, New Labour's principles are not strictly speaking Labour principles and New Labour policy certainly isn't Labour policy. We say its Labour, but the entire Party has been hijacked. Who would have thought one day that Labour's policies would be half-inched from the BNP and the Conservatives?

The BNP offer no solutions, none at all, but they promise to offer solutions. No one else is even recognising the problem, let alone suggesting solutions, so the BNP gain ground without really having to do a lot.

Labour (or should I start identifying it as New Labour so there is a definite distinction) could have stamped on the BNP before they began to get wide scale support, but they ignored the BNP in much the same way as they've ignored large swathes of the electorate. The longer they continue to ignore the electorate, the longer it will take to remove the BNP from politics.

A majority view on policy that would help is bringing in something to replace the thousands of industrial jobs lost during the 80s. (New) Labour can no longer blame Margaret Thatcher unfortunately because they have had nearly 13 years to correct what the Conservatives did on Thatcher's watch and they've failed miserably.

Remember the guys in 'The Full Monty'? Daft film, but quite realistic when it came to them going to the job centre to sign on, the lack of job prospects and the problems it caused them both socially and economically. What has Labour done to tackle this?

Some would argue that Family Tax Credits have been a huge success, but any dignity or pride these men and women had has been stripped because they can not afford to live without a hand out. And a hand out it certainly is. These are the people that are at an all time historic low, for nearly 3 generations their families have had little or no job prospects because their traditional industrial base has been wiped off the face of the Earth - in Blighty at least.

Thats one of the reasons the BNP thrive and wouldn't you agree that Labour's policy should have been to help these people, the very people who founded the Party in the first place? Don't you think after 12 years, 8 of which had incredible growth in the economy that Labour could have done something, anything to return pride and dignity to men and women who want to work hard and earn a decent days pay?

The majority want it Mike. Even those who don't think it really matters to them, they will voice their opinion on people who long term unemployed claiming benefits, so really they do want those industrial jobs back or at least something comparible that will get these people working again.

Pride - Dignity - Trust. You can not give these to people, but what you can do is give them the opportunity. The Conservatives created the problem by knocking down the industry without thinking of the future consequences, but Labour have compounded the problem by whinging about the Conservatives "It was all Maggies fault" and not doing a damn thing about it. Thats where the BNP come in, they are the nagging voice with a hideously foul agenda behind Griffin's pledge to help the disenfranchised.

What is Labour's response Mike? Can you think of a policy that Labour currently have that tackles it? Any of Labour's principles that cover it? And if there are, where the devil are they?

The State declares organisations illegal - Islamic extremists, the Real IRA etc , and that doesn't particularly bother me.

Given the BNP agenda, I don't think they are the same as any other party - but at the moment the position is somewhat uncertain.

I know why people are voting for them. It doesn't mean that I have to agree with it, or them. Or that this automatically means no action - freedom of speech isn't the only criteria which should be considered.

Road Hog I have been finding out why people have been voting for them. Through discussion debate etc.

Incidently I actually met a BNP candidate on Sunday and his big dog, was very interesting, I liked the dog though (I am very fond of animals), I think that worried him a bit as the dog liked me too.

@MH

There is no open discussion, because as soon as a discussion starts the race card is played.

OK then, lets turn it around the other way, what part of being 'Labour', what part of your ideology, do you think is inimical to (for example) placing restraints upon immigration or leaving the EU, which are the two biggest things that drive voters towards the BNP.

It really is a surreal day. On the one hand I have just had a meeting with a prominant member of the asian community in East London and we discussed the issues and troubles we are all facing here as well as those problems faced by people in Pakistan. Now I have to watch Nick griffin on a BBC television programme who will have absolutely nothing to offer anyone anywhere anything unless they reside in the UK and has no solutions to offer the World in addressing Global issues.

"Should the BNP be legal and if they are" more Statist suppression, they are most definitely legal and yes they should be regarded as any other political party.

Go and find out why people are voting for them, do not try and shout them down/shut them down.

Bill, I can't honestly say that I agree with any of the BNP 'solutions'.

And if the majority view is against our principles then its better to be out of office

BJFBW was a meaningless slogan

But establishing foyers aimed at single mothers has nothing to do with the BNP, nor the nonsense you associate with them. Providing support and work seems a lot more sensible than sticking them on a housing waiting list and putting them in temporary accommodation which is what happens at the moment

But what do you actually mean by this, Bill? I can't conclude anything other than that you think it would be a good idea to respond by doing what prospective BNP voters want How do you propose we answer the concerns of people who want all immigration stopped and everyone forced to assimilate?

We could enter into discussion/debate, but if at the end of it all, we were still saying, sorry, but we are not adopting BNP policies - their votes would still be lost. And why should people who have those views want to vote Labour anyway?

"the problem is the lack of unionisation"

You've got that backwards. Unions push wage prices up, then foreign workers, who aren't unionised, can come in and work for less as you describe.

Of course, the unions could just wise up to the fact that their collective bargaining makes them uncompetitive in a global labour market, but bolshy Trots just don't think that way.

Hi Monkey

your right , We must show them up in front of as many people as possible to show there vile policys , Only by doing this the voters will make there mind up with the facts .

ricki

The question is not should they be legal, it's are they legal.

If the answer is yes, they absolutely must be treated the same as other parties.

Hi B Bendle

I dont judge you as anything , The one thing we all have in common is we are all human .

ricki

I'd be interested to know how you know I'm not a)northern b)working class or c)low paid - feel free to let me know.

a) You support West Ham.
b) You've got an MA and do professional jobs
c) Pass.

Plus you might end up with an average prole who has been sacked and replaced by cheap migrant labour, or told that if they dont like their conditions they can f*** off because the boss can go get Poles to do it for half the money etc etc.

All fairly common occurences, and ones that the left can't deal with, so that have to either deny the truth of it, or say the problem is the lack of unionisation. The latter point being correct, but not a bit theoretical to someone who has just had all their overtime cut in a workplace where they won't let you have a union.

"British Jobs for British Workers"

Yes, good old Gordon jumped on that one didn't he, shame he can't possibly deliver on it, since anyone from the EU is entitled to work in the UK and discriminating against non UK workers is illegal.

The BNP, crazy xenophobic bunch that they are, intend to pull out of the EU in the extremely unlikely event that they ever manage to lay their grubby hands on the levers. Which is another reason people might vote for them.

Because that's another Elephant in the room. There can't be a single MP who doesn't understand that were we to conduct a proper plebiscite tomorrow on EU membership, the overwhelming majority of people in the UK would tick the box marked "no ta, I'd rather have my sovereignty back if it's all the same with you"

Neither Labour or the Tories have any credibility on this issue at all. Cameron is terrified to even mention it in case his party dissolves in a bitter civil war, and Brown dare not mention it because the party line is "Pro EU" and the Lisbon deal is already done, by him, without consulting us.

But British voters care very much about the EU, they care that it is undemocratic, corrupt and expensive. They care that it engenders more and more red tape in their everyday lives, they care that it erodes sovereignty. And they care very much that their current crop of politicians, with the exception of the BNP and UKIP are simply not prepared to have it raised as an issue.

Hi Bill

Its also because of spin Mps are scared to voice any concerns or split from party lines , it is in a way a lack of democrecy.

ricki

That may well be part of it Ricki, but it runs deeper than that. It's more down to the fact that these people are not listened to, their concerns are not being answered by anyone and the closest thing to what they once would vote for happens to be being spouted by the BNP.

Unfortunately all the mainstream parties do is ignore the problem further and in an cynical effort to win over the ethnic minority vote by trashing these people, smearing them all as racists. They do this so effectively they may as well write it into a book called "How to Lose Friends and Lose over a Million Voters".

The best they can offer is Tom with his "I'm not interested in your uninformed opinions", but then that is the same message as the existing MPs, so nothing new there.

The BNP aren't just an anti-immigration party though..

British Jobs for British Workers

and institutionalising young single mums into homes for the State to 're-educate'...

Two policies Labour have taken from the BNP.

Why would that be?

"And that is democracy. Because if governments do 'unpopular things' people can then vote for someone else"

No, that's parliamentary dictatorship disguised as representative democracy, but I see your point, and I am glad that you would rather democracy prevail than an unpopular government force it's ideology on people.

And which of the policies that is causing this issue are the ones you don't want changing Mike?

This isn't just a single policy issue, the problem can not be resolved by just changing a policy. And this is exactly what I'm saying, no one is listening, even on here.

Think about it Mike, if you were disenfranchised, what would convince you that politicians were listening to you? How could politicians gain your trust? If they change one policy, would that be enough? Or would it be enough if they listened to what you said about local issues and started actually doing something about those local issues?

What you're not getting Mike is immigration is a bit of an elephant in the room. Yes it is part of the problem, but that is not the reason large numbers of people are voting for the BNP. Racism is the reason either.

As for your final sentence, democracy is all about the majority view. When a political party in office goes against that they end up being ousted out of office.

Tories don't write letters to the local paper and deliver leaflets spouting vile, blatant, slanderous lies about their opponents.

That's exactly what they sent me before the last local elections. Unfortunately, because their opponents were independents, no-one cared.

The independents still kept their seats.

Hi Mike

Its not policy , Its they feel so anoyned at the main partys of spin lies and expenses .

ricki

I don't get this.

What, exactly, will convince people that they are not being ignored? The only thing is a change of policy - and I don't want to see that.

Parties should offer the policies they believe in - not change them just because they are not the majority view

Hi labourlist

The BNP have been elected (into the EU parliment) , They and there suporters should be given the space to make there case , Lets challenge them on facts and show the voters what a really nasty party looks like .

ricki

No. I simply think that we should not alter our stance simply because some disagree with us.

If people want racist policies, then they should vote BNP. I don't see the point in voting Labour unless it is to oppose the BNP view.

The problem I have with your argument is that you appear to think that its fine to change your stance simply to win votes. If the immigration issue is that important for some people and they want the BNP approach then its obvious what they should be doing - voting BNP.

What I would not want to see is Labour altering its stance to that of the BNP. I would prefer Labour to stand by what it believes - and yes, that may mean some people who want BNP ideas instead won't vote for us.

And that is democracy. Because if governments do 'unpopular things' people can then vote for someone else. And 'd rather be in opposition than in government putting BNP ideas into practice!

So basically a bit of abuse, a little trouble and its an excuse to trash democracy?

Do you view people who vote for the BNP as racist then Rachel? Just interested to know.

I know a couple of people who have openly admitted to voting BNP, but they got a little more than a bit of namecalling and they really did suffer a 'reign of terror'. Their cars are stamped on, their gardens are trashed, windows broken, wives and daughters are heckled with sexual innuendo every time they step out of the front door. Their streets have families who seem to spend the day dragging items of furniture backwards and forward, often garden furniture, the same garden furniture that was in the garden before it got trashed.

What can they do? When they ring the police, the police take the side of the newly arrived so as not to offend and end up at the wrong side of an ethnic diversity officer. They tackle the people stealing their possessions or routinely insulting their wives and children, only to end up locked in a cell under some anti-racist law. They complain to council, but again nothing will be done about any of it.

So they turn to the BNP and rather than going into those areas and tackling the real problems, rather than debating with a party that has the same democratic right to be there as any other political party, your answer is No Platform. Well done, have a biscuit and expect another million BNP voters to turn up at the next election.

Why would you want to post anonymously though? I may disagree with you, but there is nothing wrong with your comment. What do you think will happen, someone from the BNP will read it and start stalking you?

I fail to see how the existence of some rough neighbourhoods where people don't like strangers is an argument in favour of "No Platform".

I've lived in neighbourhoods like that, and it makes no difference whether you are "known to the BNP" or not, you're an outsider and therefore fair game. I lost count of the number of sales droids whose cars I saw broken into.

That such hellish social conditions exist is not the fault of the BNP, nor is it an excuse to deny them the expression of their opinions.

Or am I missing something ? Is there, in fact, more to your argument than "I went to an area that I think had BNP supporters in it to campaign against them and they dint like me, boo hoo sob. Therefore : No platform, No exceptions" ?

I do understand where "Platformers" are coming from but I have to beg to differ.

I'm no fan of the Tories but...

....when I have leafleted very Tory areas with Labour leaflets I haven't risked having my car broken into and I haven't risked being beaten up. Neither have I seen 7 year olds run towards me spouting vile racist abuse at me because I'm not from their neighbourhood (even though I'm actually white British/Irish).

There was one ward that almost didn't get leafleted because their "reign of terror" was so strong we couldn't find willing leafleters. On one occasion we tried, the police turned us away because they didn't want to "cause trouble".

Tories don't write letters to the local paper and deliver leaflets spouting vile, blatant, slanderous lies about their opponents. Neither do they dabble in what can perhaps best be described as "not-quite-so-legitimate" ways of getting people to the polling booths....KWIM???

I was probably safer than most because I don't look the part of an anti-fascist campaigner - and I don't fit any of the stereotypes. What's more, I wasn't really known to the BNP - it was my first involvement in anti-BNP campaigning...and if I could've found a way to post this message anonymously I would've done so (note to admin?).

I hate to take Dan Hannons view on the popularity of the BNP, but.

If the political classes stopped deliberatly antagonising the public,
the public will stop antagonising the political classes.

I've never voted for the BNP, but those who hold their noses and do so, seem to be getting their message across, dont they?

There is not an open discussion. I completely disagree with No Platform and been subjected to smears and innuendos as a result.

The BNP's policies are odious as they are populist.

I said populist and do you know why; yes, there are 1m people that voted for them. That is 1m too many for me. Are 1m people racist? I really don't think so, are there 1m desperate voters who feel completely abandoned and disenfranchised?

Absolutely.

Then look at where those votes were garnered, they were by and large defecting Labour voters. Why?

One simple reason; they feel their 'home', their 'party' has deserted them.

No Platform might be a high and mighty political 'principle' but what it really is is a dereliction of duty to oppose the views of other through political discourse.

Not by attending often violent rallies (yes, I've been on some usually stuck in-between the rabid BNP nut-cases and the rabid Anti-fascist nut-cases.) to yell your disapproval and throw pepper and eggs around but to seek debate and win arguments through the political process.

Remember, the very people that voted for the BNP are the very people that think the political process is broken. Not turning up to share a platform then looks as if Labour PPCs and MP actually believe it is.

That is going to give the BNP validation and strengthen their case.

PPCs and MPs seek the represent the people; not themselves.

It seems a few people seeking election have forgotten that already.

I see that us Tories have put up Baroness Warsi for QT.

One thing is for certain; you will see from her that to beat the BNP you argue and beat their arguments NOT simply throw a girlie strop and fail to show up.

It's simply cowardly in the eyes of the electorate and think that you cannot argue your case.

Reading this argument; you cannot win the argument on this one. You say you understand it - no you don't. You couldn't be further from it that you all obviously need a map to find your backsides with both hands.

Deciding who is worthy of freedom of speech is ironically an authoritarian and fascist construct.

Tom hasn't done himself any favours, especially since he is a PPC.

Thus amply demonstrating why Griffin should be on Question Time.

"Why? because its popular is no reason."

Think you'll find that doing what is popular is called 'Democracy', Mike. People have shed blood for it, it's regarded as quite important. Important enough to start two wars in the last 12 years.


"You should do what is right not what is popular."

When a government does unpopular things because it is convinced it is right and thus rides roughshod over the wishes of its constituency it is called something else entirely.

"Or why bother?"

Why indeed. An excellent point. At some point in the near future, the left is going to have to sit down and have a serious debate with itself about whether it actually thinks that democracy is a political system it can really live with.

Clearly, there are those like Tom, and possibly yourself from your comment above, who although they probably haven't thought about that way, don't actually think democracy is a good idea.

You would, perhaps, prefer a more soviet style of government where a few 'informed' people make the 'right' choices and the opinions of the proletariat be damned.

I'm sure you'll think I'm just tweaking you, but I'm deadly serious. You can't have a statist authoritarian democracy, you can have statist authoritarian OR a democracy.

There will always be this tension with any political movement that believes itself to based on an infallible ideology, just as with any other religion.

I know one thing for sure, Tom hasn't done himself any favours, especially since he is a PPC. I wonder whether some of the constituents in Southend West might read his comments about not being interested in uninformed opinions, the one statement that if he really believes what he's written makes him wholly unsuitable to be a representative to the electorate.

His claim to know more than most is probably more arrogant that the statement about uninformed opinions, but it is the latter that will stick in peoples minds. As I say, no public debates for Tom, it would ruin his political career before it even gets started.

No there isn't open discussion Mike, there are a lot of views posted on the issue, but when people begin to disagree we end up with a string of insults like 'You're a BNP sympathiser' and the like. Arguments break out and it ends with nothing resolved, just lots of insults traded. Thats not really open discussion is it? It a case of 'agree with my view or you're a fascist!'

Its got nothing to do with being popular, it has to do with a huge number of people be ignored. Whether or not I agree with their perspective is irrelevant, we live in a democracy which means that they should be listened to.

Until politicians and activists start to practise what they preach, like Tom with his "A vote for me is a vote to ensure that Labour is the party of the many, not the few." then the problems are going nowhere, likewise with the BNP.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I'm in two minds about Mr. Flynn, he's clearly very arrogant and thinks he knows best but at least he's been upfront with that arrogance and allowed us all to see it rather than hide it like a lot of our current PPC.

Bill, surely listening and giving the right answers and being a smug arrogant sod is the difference between a PPC and a PC? (O;

"Not all no-platformers are thugs"

Nice qualification there, Tom, I see you freely admit that even in your opinion, some of them are. I would argue that all of them are. Suppressing someone else's freedom to a point a view and it's expression, Tom, is a form of violence. It is the very definition of oppression, in fact. It's very, very close to actually being fascism.


"For those of you who can't make that distinction I will assume you have never participated in anti-fascist campaigning and frankly I'm not interested in your uninformed opinions"

Thanks for clarifying the point that I made, Tom. You aren't interested in the opinions of people who aren't anti fascist campaigners, e.g. most of the population of the UK. You aren't interested because they know nothing and you know much better than they do, and therefore you should get to make their decisions for them and speak on their behalf.

Remind me again, which part of your point have I not understood ?

"A. Nonymous - please do me the courtesy of reading what I have written - I can't be bothered restating what I've already said in the blog post."

But I did read it Tom. I even read the Facebook page you linked to in order to clarify your abhorrent theory that your disagreement with someone's opinions gives you the right to use violence against them to prevent them having their say. "No platform, no exceptions" it says, and you wonder why the BBC don't want you in their studio.

Perhaps if they thought that all these deeply intellectual "anti fascist campaigners" might participate in a grown up debate, rather than simply try to disrupt proceedings with their oft seen childish and aggressive behaviour, they might not be so bothered, but every picture we see of the UAF and it's ilk involve them being, well, thugs, Tom. So I don't blame them.

That probably is the question - should the BNP be legal, and if they are, should they be regarded as the same as any other political party?

I don't understand what you mean when you say that we can't have an open discussion

There is lots of discussion, but ultimately some people hold views which are incompatible. The problem I have with those who want an open discussion as they put it, is that the assumption is always that Labour should change its view and take a harder line in immigration.

Why? because its popular is no reason. You should do what is right not what is popular. Or why bother?

Let me help you out a little bit here Tom with how Road Hog knows who you are, how I know who you are and so you can see why your comment below is being percieved as arrogant:

A vote for me is a vote to ensure that Labour is the party of the many, not the few.

Now would that be the Party of the many providing they agree with you, or if you percieve them as uninformed will you not be interested?

If you look back at your profile and other PPC profiles, you'll notice I didn't comment. The reason was you were one of the few PPCs to give a perfect answer to one of the questions and you convinced me you were doing all this for the right reasons. Not overly sure considering your comment and your tone whether you answered the question honestly now. I'm beginning to suspect you're another PPC who tells the electorate what he thinks they want to hear.

Lets hope you have no public debates with David Amess eh? You might slip up like you have here today.

oh dear tom. once again you're picking - and LL too - at a scab of labour's own making. are you perhaps so keen on 'no platform' in the MSM for the british national party in order to suppress the uncomfortable fact that its resurgence is down to labour failures amongst labour voters? obviously this isn't something you can blame on the tories.

i can't explain your specious, anti-democratic arguments any other way ... you would sacrifice debate with a legally legitimate opponent for censorship and the gag mmmmm? one word: voltaire. two words: grow up.

I know who you are Tom, but whether you're interested in my uninformed opinions or not, I'm going to give you them anyway.

No Platform, Hope Not Hate, UAF? If more people had campaigned against the BNP? You really are completely clueless aren't you?

The BNP are not the problem, it is the numbers supporting them that is the issue. Before the BNP had chance to be campaigned against or argued with, politicians of all parties should have listened. I don't buy that this is a Labour issue, its not, it is every political party since the 1960s who have ignored the electorate and pushed through policy after policy without explaining or acknowledging.

The very fact that we can't have an open discussion on issues such as immigration is proof enough that politics doesn't listen, it doesn't explain and just as you said, is totally uninterested in what it percieves as uninformed opinions. Do you think every BNP supporter is a thug then Tom? Maybe I should ignore your message just incase? Is that how democracy works now, you ignore anyone you percieve as having an uninformed opinion?

QT won't do the job on its own, but you're not tackling the body of the problem, you're trying to chop off the head. Chopping off the head, if you understand the issues presented from all sides will result in two heads growing back or have you been asleep for the past couple of years? The BNP are growing, slower than they were, but they are growing and with every misguided comment you make, with every No Platformer, every Anti-Fascist that kicks a car or shouts abuse, the problems grow alongside it.

What form did the death threat come in Tom? Was it written or verbal? Did you inform the police of this death threat? Have you any idea why they might target you over me? Or do you think you're the only one in this little debate we're having who tackles the growing problem of the BNP?

I did read what you posted – a lot of moaning, belief that joe public is too thick to understand the issues and that the Demon Headmaster BNP can hypnotise the nation is it wasn't for experts like you. If you were an expert then the BBC might invite you onto the panel.

“…will not be confronted by anti-fascist campaigners”

Correction. Will not be confronted by anti-fascist campaigners you agree with or by you and your mates. Do you already know the exact composition of the panel and audience? Or are you just miffed your bunch aren’t being allowed in?

“…is based on the possibility of ‘security risks’ and ‘potential disruption to the show’,”

Given the actions and threats by anti fascists in the past this is a reasonable explanation.

A metal detector won’t stop stage rushes by lunatics will it? Or shouting and chanting?

The BBC is not preventing sensible questions on BNP policy that expose the party’s political naivety, economic incompetence and vile racist opportunism. They are taking steps to stop jackbooted anti-fascists rampaging in the studio, chanting, shouting and generally trying to disrupt proceedings when democratically elected politicians – representatives of the people, not self appointed experts – are being questioned.

"For those of you who can't make that distinction I will assume you have never participated in anti-fascist campaigning and frankly I'm not interested in your uninformed opinions."

Are you campaigning for Parliament or just trying to appear arrogant?

If you want to be an MP, you will have to listen to "uninformed opinions".

No wonder the BNP are gaining votes if you are typical of the anti BNP campaign. If you said that to me in person, I would tell you ever so politely and in non four letter words- that those attitudes are the cause of a lot of the contempt MPs and the political class are held in. And rightly too.

@Tom

The BNP are a legal political party who millions of people voted for in the EU elections.

Therefore trying to block their political rights is more of a threat on democarcy than they are themselves at this time.

I don wonder where you get off on telling people which legal party they should and should not be allowed to listen to?

I'm a Labour PPC with no interest in violence who as a result of peaceful campaigning is the target of a serious death threat by this 'legitimate' political party.

You didn't receive a serious death threat. Serious death threats aren't delivered outside BBC studios by members of political parties. What you experienced was the equivalent of someone threatening to get their dad to beat up your dad. When you've had a smack-head pull a knife on you in a dark ally, you can talk about serious death threats.

This confrontation was a result of our earlier involvement in a demonstration which successfully stopped Nick Griffin from hosting a press conference on College Green which has caused controversy in both the mainstream media and the blogosphere.

You threw some eggs at a fat idiot getting his picture taken - hardly a Cable Street Irregular, are you?

If more people had spent their time campaigning intelligently against the BNP and less time on the internet telling people why they are wrong we might well have stopped them being elected.

The reason they gained seats wasn't a lack of negative campaigning from you, it was Labour's failure to offer people a better candidate for which to vote.

"In the circumstances I would much rather that anti-fascists - who understand the arguments better than most - be allowed to ask sensible questions"

You arrogant sod. Where the hell do you get off making a statement like that?

How long before you decide that our meagre intellects can't handle the complex process of putting a cross in the right box on the ballot paper?

You really are the quintessential middle-class snob.

Many thanks for your replies - a few points:

Firstly anti-fascists are not all no-platformers. Not all no-platformers are thugs. For those of you who can't make that distinction I will assume you have never participated in anti-fascist campaigning and frankly I'm not interested in your uninformed opinions. I'm a Labour PPC with no interest in violence who as a result of peaceful campaigning is the target of a serious death threat by this 'legitimate' political party.

I have been employed by a trade union on the anti-BNP campaign for the 2008 GLA elections and 2009 European & local elections so, yes I do claim to understand BNP policy more than most, having spent several months on both occasions carefully examining their policies on all issues, not just on immigration and race. I would claim to know about the BNP in the same way that anyone knows the subject matter relevant to the job they do.

Bill - I understand the issues, as do many of my colleagues who worked on the campaigns for unions, Hope Not Hate, UAF and others. If more people had spent their time campaigning intelligently against the BNP and less time on the internet telling people why they are wrong we might well have stopped them being elected. I agree with you on cross examination but do not believe Question Time to be cross examination - see Sunny Hundal's post on Liberal Conspiracy and today's Guardian leader which articulate it better than I can.

Konrad, Road Hog & A. Nonymous - please do me the courtesy of reading what I have written - I can't be bothered restating what I've already said in the blog post. And Road Hog - I don't know if we've met, seeing as you hide behind a username, but I'd be interested to know how you know I'm not a)northern b)working class or c)low paid - feel free to let me know.

Bryony/Hugh - fair point but if they're not vetting supporters of the BNP (who may not have declared it on the application) then it is fair to assume that they may disrupt the recording if they don't like what they hear. I very clearly stated that I wanted to see intelligent questions being asked, not people shouting who, in any case, will be edited from what is a pre-recorded show.

I'm enjoying the debate so please do reply if you want to discuss further and I'll reply when I get the chance later.

Tom

Are you trying to be humourous?

I would much rather that anti-fascists - who understand the arguments better than most - be allowed to ask sensible questions on BNP policy that expose the party’s political naivety

By the very fact that No Platform exists is proof that your statement is false and please don't insult anyone's intelligence by presuming to understand the issue better than most. You don't understand the issue at all, I know this because again, No Platform exists.

Griffin may well be a poor excuse, his party may well be the most vile party ever to grace British politics, but he's following the rules set out for running that party, there are BNP councillors and BNP representatives in the EU. This is a democracy and his voice should be heard, even if it does mean having to listen to something unpalatable. We have to listen to politicians daily who come up with cruel and vile policies towards the majority in this country, but it is okay for them because they're in a mainstream party.

If you understood the issues properly, the BNP would not have the voters they have and there would be no need to even entertain Nick Griffin on national television, but as you're keener to bury your head in the sand, kick his car, shout abuse at him and generally behave like thugs, I don't see that 'anti-fascists' have any room to talk and there isn't a choice about whether he has a platform any more. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. I mean come on, remember Gerry Adams with those ridiculous voice overs that Thatcher insisted on? What difference did it make to peace in NI? Did it change anyone's mind because we couldn't hear his voice? Were the bombs easier to dodge by not giving Adams a political platform to work out the differences over there?

Let the man speak, in fact give him a weekly spot on the television and have some faith in the electorate. He'll expose himself for what he really is soon enough and on cross-examination his arguments will collapse. Thats what is needed now because politicians didn't listen to the concerns of the electorate in the first place and let the BNP fill a gap.

Why would the BBC want a bunch of louts trying to smash up a studio and stop democratic debate taking place with legitimate representatives of the public elected in a democratic vote?

'Anti fascists' who actually use debate, reason, logic, argument, wit, sarcasm, ridicule and intelligence to attack the BNP will still be welcome. Chanting mobs will not be.

Person who espouses militant cause including breaking up BNP meetings, objects to BBC preventing her from breaking up BBC program where BNP speak.

Seems totally reasonable behaviour to me.

"Your suggestion is you know better and are better qualified, this says to me that you don't believe that the average member of the public has the intelligence or nous to put questions to the BNP to understand their agenda and views."

Ah Road Hog, that is indeed the very thing that the juvenile "No Platform" morons fear.

They fear that the average prole will not be clever enough, or correct enough in their thinking to realise that Griffin and co are a load of vile tossers.

That is why they do not wish the proles to hear them speak.

Only by restricting the ideas presented to you can the grown up left protect our thoughts from being polluted by incorrect ideas.

After all, if they didn't, we might democratically elect someone they didn't agree with, and where would all be then eh ?

It's for our own good, you know, and after all, bowing to Stalinist tyranny is heaps better than hearing a few mouldy old knob ends with funny ideas about darkies and celtic peoples making tits out of themselves.

Bryony puts it well: It's not about obstructing your free speech; it's about stopping you from obstructing others. The fact is that, since you argue for no platform, the suspicion must be your reason for attending would be to disrupt the event, not participate in it.

"I, and some fellow anti-fascist campaigners,"

That is exactly why they are adopting these measures. I certainly do not want people with an agenda hijacking the programme. I want to see a cross spread of "normal" members of the public asking their questions and getting a fair debate.

I do not want you using it as a platform to score points and ruin what could be a very interesting debate.

"I would much rather that anti-fascists - who understand the arguments better than most" Your suggestion is you know better and are better qualified, this says to me that you don't believe that the average member of the public has the intelligence or nous to put questions to the BNP to understand their agenda and views.

Lastly, if the audience is made up of a politically biased spectrum (and it often is) you don't get a fair view and worse Nick Griffin (will quite rightly) will walk away if it is an openly hostile reception.

What you need is some working class northern voters who are either out of a job or on low pay voicing their opinions on why they voted for the BNP or might vote for the BNP, instead of the Nazis off our streets rentamob.

In fairness the point of this is to try and stop anybody who would want to disrupt the audience and detract from the actual debate by trying to protest or interrupt during the recording. It is unfair on those who wouldn't dream of doing such a thing but knowing what a handful of UAF protesters can be like I can understand why the BBC are cautious and it is likely it is these more militant protesters they are looking at, not the vast majority. It's not a case of 'denying free speech', it's a case of wanting to stop people from disrupting the free speech process.